Preamble

The House met at half-past Two oclock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Stocks and Work in Progress (Book Value)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of the stock in hand and work in progress for the latest available period.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The book value of all stocks and work in progress in the United Kingdom, at the end of March, 1965, was approximately £12,200 million.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of this total, which he will appreciate is extremely large, represented imported goods?

Mr. Jay: No, I could not say that without notice.

Woolwich Arsenal Estate

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give details of the discussions he has had on the relocation of factories displaced by development in various parts of London; with whom these discussions took place; and what proposals have been made to relocate the factories on the Woolwich Arsenal estate;
(2) what further steps have been taken to plan the development of an industrial estate on the site of the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich.

Mr. Jay: The Government have decided that the primary use of the land released at Woolwich shall be for housing, but I am prepared to consider

a limited number of suitable industrial projects for location there.
My officials are in touch with the Greater London Council about the industrial development of the Arsenal site, but no proposals to relocate any factories have been received as yet.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend agree that certain factories which are at present in the inner parts of London, in the very congested area, might be suitable for relocation in an area like Woolwich Arsenal estate? Secondly, would he also consider that if we have a very large number of people occupying houses there it would be reasonable for there to be industrial opportunities nearer where they live rather than at a distance?

Mr. Jay: Yes, I agree with both those propositions. I think that the most suitable work for this area is probably nonconforming industries moving from other parts of London.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the use of part of that site for factories prejudice or modify in any way the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 5th April that 65,000 people would have homes found for them on this site?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Coke

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the practice of retail distributors of coke of putting a water hose on their coke at depots; and what legislative or other steps he intends to take to protect the consumer from this form of exploitation.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that after this week fraudulent or deceptive damping of solid fuel will after 31st July be an offence under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963. This part of the Act comes into force on Saturday.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the House will welcome that decision? Does he realise that I myself have seen a tradesman actually on top of a coke pile watering the coke like I water the garden, and can he tell me


what steps the housewife has got to take to protect herself if she feels that the coke contains an undue proportion of water?

Mr. Darling: If the coal merchant from whom she gets the coke belongs to the approved coal merchants' scheme, I think she will be able to get redress straight away from the coal merchant himself, but if that fails to get her satisfaction, she should ask the assistance of the local weights and measures authority which has responsibility in this matter.

Mr. John Hall: While everyone would deplore deliberate attempts to defraud the consumer, would not the Minister agree that there are many cases where local authorities ask coal merchants to damp down in order to keep down the dust? They do it on instructions.

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would not the Minister agree that the next step in this very desirable progress is the encouragement of the covering of stocks in coal merchants' yards? Would not this lead to the housewife getting a fairer deal?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. Discussions are going on within the trade itself to get better depots with covering and all the other modern facilities for weighing, and so on, which will be for the benefit of the consumer.

Small Boats (Safety)

Dr. Wyndham Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy regarding safety in small boats; and how many such boats were involved in inshore casualties in United Kingdom waters in 1964.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): Small boats which ply for hire are already subject to control by the Board of Trade or by local authorities and I am satisfied with these arrangements. The Board of Trade's regulations requiring the provision of safety appliances do not apply at present to private craft under 45 ft. in length but my right hon. Friend is considering whether they should be extended to cover smaller vessels.
Inshore casualties reported to Her Majesty's Coastguard in 1964 involved

658 small boats; of these casualties 21 resulted in loss of life.

Dr. Davies: Would the Minister bear in mind that the figures I have for Her Majesty's Coastguard reports in 1964 are over 1,000? This is a large increase on the year before. I think it is important for the Minister to bring in some regulations before long on buoyancy in small craft of this type and also to deal with the whole problem of life jackets. Would the Minister examine the report of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention which came out this week and dealt with these points?

Mr. Mason: I have noted the report and I do not think I can go further than that. The Board is already in touch with yachting and other associations with a view first to deciding on the range of vessels under 45 ft. in length which should be covered and a meeting about this should take place in the autumn.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister say what support he is prepared to give to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and its pamphlet, "Safety Afloat", so that publicity on safety measures may be effectively carried out?

Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend says, there is available a booklet on "Safety Afloat" published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has my full support. Much useful work in this field has already been done by yachting and sailing clubs and the more that can be done in this way the better.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Will he and the Government do everything they can to encourage propaganda to tell people what is available to them from the point of view of rescue services and so on? Will they do everything they can to try to stop people going to sea in unseaworthy craft? We saw a report only last week about someone who went out to sea in a ship which turned over to fetch in his daughter who had gone out in a boat. Education is required. We cannot make people wear life-jackets all the time. What is needed is education about the dangers at sea for these people before they go out to sea.

Mr. Mason: I agree that we cannot legislate for stupidity and that many of


these accidents at sea are due to amateur sailors who have never bothered to read such documents as the one I mentioned, "Safety Afloat".

Imports

Mr. Barber: asked the President of the Boa rd of Trade whether he will give the figures for the importation of goods covered by the 15 per cent. or 10 per cent. import surcharge over the last available seven months of 1964–65 compared with the same period of 1954–55, 1958–59, 1961–62 and 1963–64.

Mr. Jay: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Barber: In view of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday about limiting imports of manufactured goods, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what he now considers to be the prospects for reducing and eventually abandoning the import surcharge?

Mr. Jay: No. I can tell the hon. Member that the figures show that so far this year those imports not subject to the surcharge have increased, whereas those subject to the surcharge have markedly decreased. Therefore, we can say with confidence that the surcharge is being effective.

Mr. Barber: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? I asked what prospects there were of reducing and eventually abandoning the surcharge? The right hon. Gentleman has made observations about this in the past. I should like to know, in view of the Chancellor's statement, whether there is any change in those prospects.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. We shall reduce the surcharge as soon as the balance of payments position makes it possible.

Mr. William Clark: In view of the fact that when it was introduced the Government said that it would result in a saving of £300 million in imports, and as we have had it for eight months, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that will be obtained or not?

Mr. Jay: The Government did not say £300 million, but so far the saving has been rather greater than we expected.

Following is the answer:


UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS


Goods liable to the Temporary Charge on Imports*


Period
£ million
Percentage of total Imports


November-May, 1954–55
333
15


November-May, 1958–59
432
19


November-May, 1961–62
681
26


November-May, 1963–64
926
30


November-May, 1964–65
917
29


* The figures given do not exactly correspond to the categories liable to the charge, but represent a close approximation to them.

Film Industry

Mr. Hopkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take to assist the British film industry.

Mr. Jay: British film production already receives a wide measure of assistance and the studios are well occupied.

Mr. Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some very fine films have been produced recently by the independent producers? Is he satisfied that the arrangements are working to the benefit of independent producers as a whole?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. From my information, the producers of a large number of successful films recently made have had independent control over scripts and production arrangements.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to give every assistance to this industry, particularly that part of the industry concerned with television films? Will he bear in mind that many of us are sick and tired of the importation of American films for T.V. and it is high time that British films had a fair share in T.V. programmes?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, we shall do all we reasonably can to encourage British films.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that those who have studied the problem will consider his first Answer very complacent and not reflecting the true position in Britain?

Mr. Jay: That is not my information from the industry, but if the hon. Member wants to make special representations I shall be delighted to listen to them.

Mr. Peter Emery: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the Government will do all they reasonably can? The complaint of the film industry is that not enough is being done and a great deal more needs to be done by the Board of Trade on this matter to encourage the British film industry to make films so that we do not have to import American rubbish for television.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member must know of the things which are being done. There is a quota in force and there is the National Film Finance Corporation and the special levy introduced by the previous Labour Government.

Tariff Reductions (Kennedy Round)

Mr. Hunt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the present position of the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions.

Mr. Hordern: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiative has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in order to seek a solution to the negotiations on the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions.

Mr. Jay: As the statement is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for sending me an advance copy of that statement. Is he aware that there will be some disappointment that the British Government are not proposing to take any new initiative in this matter? Will he agree that in the interests of world trade in general and the increase in British exports in particular it is important that Britain should be seen to be making a positive lead in this field?

Mr. Jay: I think everyone knows that we are. We put in our exceptions lists last winter on the due date and we are trying to push the negotiations forward. We have to complete them before the middle of 1967. I hope that all countries will realise as well as us that if we lose the chance of achieving the result by then, we shall have missed a great opportunity.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a developing body of opinion which does not think that fiscal

and monetary inducements for exports are the only answers and that more means must be found to get our goods on display at minimum cost to the manufacturer?

Mr. Jay: I think that refers to the next Question rather than to this one.

Following is the statement:

Since industrial exceptions lists were tabled in Geneva in November, 1964, the main activity in the Kennedy Round negotiations has been the unspectacular but essential work of examining, both in bilateral discussions and in wider groups, the scope for limiting the effects of exceptions and other problems on the proposed linear reductions in tariffs, particularly in key industrial sectors such as chemicals. Useful exploratory work has also been done on non-tariff barriers to trade and on problems of interest to the developing countries in the negotiations.

The Working Group on cereals has met on a number of occasions since offers were tabled in April and progress has been made. It has been agreed that offers relating to other agricultural products should be tabled on 16th September; but there is bound to be doubt whether this will be possible unless the European Economic Community as we should all hope, can resolve their present difficulties in time.

The time taken by these negotiations is mainly a matter of their wide scope and complexity. The present powers of the United States Administration to cut tariffs under the Trade Expansion Act run until June, 1967, and it has long been recognised that the stage of substantive negotiation towards a balanced package deal, covering industrial tariffs, non-tariff barriers and barriers to trade in agriculture, would probably not be reached until 1966.

No new initiative by the Government would be likely to affect this timetable and what is required is steady progress towards a comprehensive settlement. The policy of the Government is to continue to work in every way possible for a successful outcome of these negotiations.

Exports

Mr. Higgins: asked the President of the Board of Trade what new action or initiative he has taken within the last six weeks to stimulate exports.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th July. In addition to these measures I am pressing on with the policies which I announced on 27th January and the supplementary measures that I described to the House on 8th April, 1st June and 23rd June. I am sending him copies of my statements for his information.

Mr. Higgins: The President is no doubt fully aware of the importance of exports in the fulfilment of the national plan being prepared by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. Can he confirm that he is being consulted on this plan at every stage and can he tell the House what changes have been made in the figures for exports in that plan as a result of the measures which he has announced?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, I am being fully consulted. I can assure the hon. Member that the further measures announced yesterday will help to ensure that we will achieve the target for exports foreshadowed in the plan.

Mr. Barber: In view of the fact that since February exports have fallen each month—in March, April, May and June—will not the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the Government's policies in this respect have failed? What else does he propose to do? Does he realise that merely tinkering with the problem as he has been doing so far will not solve it?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. As a result of the whole series of measures we have introduced—all of which were said by the previous Government to be impossible—exports are now running at a level of 4 per cent. higher than a year ago. The reason the increase has not been still greater is due to the present very high level of home demand and that is exactly why the Chancellor announced the measures on Tuesday.

Mr. Dell: In view of the fact that under the Chancellor's statement the rate of interest to cover short terms of credit may vary and may still be higher than those paid by foreign competitors, are the Government considering what more can be done in the case of short-term credits?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. We have produced a regular series of improvements and we intend to go on doing so.

Resale Price Maintenance

Mr. Hopkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many groups of cases, covering how many individual cases, seeking exemption from the ban on Resale Price Maintenance have been brought by the Registrar of Restrictive Practices before the court; and how many groups of cases, covering how many

individual cases, still await consideration by the court.

Mr. Darling: I am informed by the Registrar that proceedings under the Resale Prices Act have been started in respect of 32 cases, covering about 140 whole classes of registered goods and parts of a further 20 classes. The Registrar is not able to estimate the number of court cases that will be necessary to cover the other parts of these 20 classes, and the remaining 350 classes of registered goods.

Mr. Hopkins: Could the Minister of State give any indication of how long he expects this process to take?

Mr. Darling: At this stage I think that would be extremely difficult. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the beginning of proceedings in these matters takes some considerable time. The Registrar must get the cases prepared. I am afraid that it would be impossible at this stage to give any indication of the timetable.

Mr. Hogg: When are the first cases expected to be heard?

Mr. Darling: I am afraid I cannot say without notice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know more about these proceedings than I do. I understand that in about 10 cases the indications have been given to those concerned. They are preparing for their appearances before the court.

E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. (Trade and Tariffs)

Mr. Peter Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to stimulate further agreements on trade and tariff problems between the nations of the European Economic Community and the countries in the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Jay: Following the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the recent meeting of the E.F.T.A. Ministers in Vienna, we are examining with our E.F.T.A. partners what suggestions might be put forward for discussion between the two groups with a view to promoting closer co-operation in Europe. We are continuing to work towards the success of the Kennedy Round which was agreed at that meeting to be of paramount importance as the principal means


of lowering barriers to trade both worldwide and in Europe.

Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the amount of trade being done by E.F.T.A. with the E.E.C. is decreasing in ratio at the moment? It is still greater than it was last year, but in ratio it is decreasing. Therefore, there is a need for something other than just consultation. Many of our E.F.T.A. partners expect Great Britain to take the lead in obtaining some definite results with the E.E.C.

Mr. Jay: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's practical proposals. It is true that the ratio is decreasing. The striking fact is that total trade between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. and indeed between the U.K. and the E.E.C., has more than doubled since the Rome Treaty was signed.

Monopolies Commission

Captain W. Elliot: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to appoint new members to the Monopolies Commission; how many cases are waiting to be heard by the Commission; and how many reports by the Commission have been issued this year.

Mr. Jay: I intend to make further appointments to the Monopolies Commission this autumn. I cannot say in advance what further cases will be referred to the enlarged Commission. The answer to the third part of the Question is, one.

Captain Elliot: As the Bill is very soon to become law, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should hurry up these appointments? Could he give some idea of the type of individual he will ask to serve on the Commission?

Mr. Jay: I cannot make the appointments until the Bill has received the Royal Assent, but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as soon as it has received it we shall proceed with the appointments.

Captain Orr: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the report from the Commission on the film industry?

Mr. Jay: No.

Mr. William Hamilton: What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take on the report the Commission has produced?

Mr. Jay: I have already said that we accept the main conclusions of the report—I think my hon. Friend means on the distribution of petrol. I hope shortly, after consultation with the industry concerned, that we shall be able to formulate precise proposals.

Pin-Table and Fruit Machines

Mr. Murray: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the total number of pin-table and fruit machines imported in the last five years;
(2) what was the cost in dollars in each of the last five years for the import of pin-table and fruit machines.

Mr. Jay: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT those figures which are available.

Mr. Murray: I should like my right hon. Friend to give us a total figure at some time and to consider whether the import of pin-table and fruit machines is of any value whatsoever in our present economic circumstances.

Mr. Jay: I presume that those who purchase them and import them consider that they are of some value to them. As to the general question, the previous Government removed import quotas from all these sorts of goods, and it is very much more difficult to re-establish them once they are removed than to keep them there.

Mr. Bagier: Would my right hon. Friend, having allowed the import of these machines, refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of taxing the income from them, because that way he would hit a considerable jackpot?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly pass that suggestion on to my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that these machines bear both a 20 per cent. import duty and a 10 per cent. surcharge.

Sir R. Thompson: Are not these machines available and manufactured in this country? Before the right hon. Gentleman takes any drastic steps about


them, will he realise that a large percentage of the income of both political parties comes from these machines?

Mr. Jay: I have no official information about the latter point. I understand that manufacture in this country is on a small scale.

Following are the available figures:


IMPORTS OF ALL COIN AND DISC-OPERATED AMUSEMFNT MACHINES


(£'000 c.i.f.)


Year
Total Imports
Imports from U.S.A.


1960
1,312
873


1961
1,084
774


1962
1,664
1,070


1963
2,722
1,338


1964
3,393
1,470

The dollar cost of these imports is not known.

Motor Insurance

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to prevent insurance companies rejecting proposals for motor insurance from individuals with British parents on the grounds that they were born outside the British Isles.

Mr. Darling: No, Sir. I understand that in so far as any insurance companies are less ready to accept proposals for motor insurance from persons born outside the British Isles, any such differential treatment is based on an assessment of the risks involved.

Mr. Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware that this sort of action makes the individuals concerned feel that it is a form of racial discrimination?

Mr. Darling: As I understand it from this case, that does not arise. It is, as I said in my Answer, a question of basing the assessment on the risks involved for the person who wants to be insured. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that there are about 200 insurers in this country catering for motor business. It is a very competitive market. I should imagine that any competent driver, whatever his origin, whether born in this country or not, should be able to find an insurer prepared to offer him reasonable terms.

Peru (Sale of Arms)

Mr. Freeson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to stop the sale of arms to Peru.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Mr. Freeson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be of assistance to the reformist Government established in Peru if we were to seek to replace this kind of trade with trade which would be of greater assistance to the economic development in this territory, as indeed applies in other territories in this part of the world?

Mr. Jay: I am all in favour of peaceful trade with Peru, but I am not satisfied that there is a case for the ban which my hon. Friend is arguing for.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist pressure from his hon. Friends for this sort of ban? Is he aware that we have traded very successfully with Peru for many years and that it is very important that these friendly relations should continue?

Mr. Jay: I will resist pressure from both sides of the House as necessary.

Shipping Industry

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received for the nationalisation of the shipping industry and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: None, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman has received no representations as such, would he agree that it is not for the want of proposals along these lines by the more outrageous Left-wing organisations? Will he give a firm assurance that he will not seek to solve the problems of this industry by the sterile formula of nationalisation?

Mr. Mason: That supplementary question is quite irrelevant because I have received no representations on this topic.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from Right-wing elements calling for the denationalisation of our oldest nationalised industry—the British Navy?

Mr. Mason: Not yet.

Technicians, Merseyside (Employment)

Mr. Heffer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take to ensure employment for technicians in the Merseyside area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: I am not aware of any problem of employment for technicians on Merseyside requiring special action by me at the present time.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Automatic Telephone Co. is proposing to take a section of its works to Poole? Does not this cut across the declared policy of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—to expand work on Merseyside, which is a development area? Would my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—would my right hon. Friend look into this matter to ensure that something is done to overcome this difficulty, because certain Government contracts may well be affected as a result of the uncertainty?

Mr. Jay: I shall be very glad to look into this, but I understand that telephone manufacturing activity in Liverpool as a whole is increasing. Unemployment on Merseyside is now lower than for a very long time, but I will certainly examine what my hon. Friend had said.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During my supplementary question, there was constant interruption from the opposite side of the House which prevented hon. Members hearing what was being said. Is this the usual practice in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members on both sides will remember (a) to speak audibly and (b) to listen quietly. In that way we shall get on better.

Mr. Tilney: Will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind that what is really wanted on Merseyside is a large number of small factories to be let, and that it is these which are most likely to require technicians?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, I agree; and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the particulars about certain factories which he has sent to us.

Export Statistics

Mr. Wallace: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for export statistics, other than those normally supplied by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to be available to manufacturers free of charge.

Mr. Jay: I am not convinced that the present charges are excessive.

Mr. Wallace: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in our drive for exports, we should give the maximum information in the shortest possible time, without fiddling about with questions of cost?

Mr. Jay: I agree with that in general, but in this case I cannot see any reason why firms should not pay a reasonable charge, like everyone else, for this sort of publication.

Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend consider making rather fuller information about imports available so that, when a firm is failing even to meet home market demand, its competitors can see this and get into the market quickly?

Mr. Jay: There is a good deal of information available already, but if my hon. Friend has any further particulars in mind, I shall consider them.

Industrial Investment (Tax Incentives)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the use of investment reserve certificates, similar to tax reserve certificates, in order to stimulate a level growth of industrial investment; and what official discussions he has had with industrial leaders on the subject.

Mr. Jay: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his Budget statement, it is the Government's intention to review the present tax incentives to industrial investment. The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind in this review. My right hon. Friend and I would welcome the views of industrial leaders on this whole subject.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that there is a good deal of anxiety that the whole modernisation of Britain, which featured


so largely at the last General Election, will come to a shuddering halt, and there is, therefore, particular merit in schemes of this sort, notably in relation to the machine tool industry which has a cyclical tendency? Would it not be a great advantage if some incentives of this kind were introduced?

Mr. Jay: I see no evidence whatever of a shuddering halt. Industry and employment are now running at an all-time record level. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is very important, and we are examining it carefully.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the cyclical pattern of industrial investment? Will he not agree that we seem at the moment to be at the top of a very slippery slope from which we may come down very quickly, and, if this be so, would not the remedy be to introduce these industrial investment certificates in the autumn? How far have his conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer got on this subject?

Mr. Jay: If we are at the top, then, obviously, we are not in the dire condition suggested by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). But we are examining this, and I imagine that even the hon Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) does not want us to introduce another Finance Bill next week.

Machine Tools (Imports)

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish or make available a fully-detailed and comprehensive breakdown of machine tool imports, further to the information provided in the Overseas Trade Accounts.

Mr. Jay: Fuller details by type and by country of consignment are available from the Statistical Office of H.M. Customs and Excise. Figures for the year 1964 and the period January to May, 1965, have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Walker: Is my right hon Friend aware that some of us on this side have recently had discussions with the machine tool trade association—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite should get themselves hearing aids.

Mr. Walker: —at which representatives of the trade complained that the available information was not sufficiently detailed for its members to be able to make an assessment of the potential home market, using the absence of this detailed breakdown as justification for the trade's failure to reduce the level of machine tool imports? Does not this indicate a need for closer co-operation between the Board of Trade and machine tool manufacturers in this country?

Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend knows, there has just been a very thorough report on this industry by one of the "little Neddies" and its proposals are now being put into force. Perhaps my Answer will have made clear that very detailed figures of this kind are, in fact, available.

Mr. Gurden: Why does not the President of the Board of Trade publish monthly figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—of our home machine tool industry rather than create delay by keeping them for three months?

Mr. Jay: I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, but I shall study what he said in the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what can be done to help him.

Mr. Speaker: On the supposition that hon. Members desire to hear the questions, might I drop the hint that, if they are addressed to the Chair, then the machine tools which we have available can operate?

Home Tuition Courses (Sales Technique)

Mr. Boston: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prohibit the type of sales technique in which a customer is persuaded to pay for a home tuition course for which the necessary equipment is provided, only to find after entering into an agreement that the purpose of the arrangement is to sell the equipment.

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has at present no evidence that such steps are necessary, but he is, of course, prepared to consider any specific complaints that my hon. Friend or others may send him.

Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend investigate the activities of a certain typewriting school or firm, details of which I have sent to him, which is causing some anxiety in various parts of the country? Second, will he bear in mind cases of the other type, details of which also I have sent to him, in which one of my constituents invested in a course, was involved in considerable expense, and had to withdraw from the course in order to avoid further expense?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir; we are investigating both the cases on the basis of the information which my hon. Friend has sent to us.

Industrial Development Certificates (South-East)

Mr. Boston: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on granting industrial development certificates for those parts of the South-East which do not enjoy the prosperity of the region as a whole.

Mr. Jay: Industrial development certificates are granted in these places for projects which cannot go to the development districts and whose employment demands are not beyond local resources.

Mr. Boston: My right hon. Friend's Answer will be warmly welcomed. Will he continue to give the same sort of consideration as he has in the past to those parts of the South-East, like the Isle of Sheppey, for instance, which have previously been suffering hardship?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir.

Cotton Textiles (Imports)

Mr. Mapp: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations in respect of the import of cotton textiles for 1966 onwards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong textile quota, in order to relieve the uncertainty which is damaging the Colony's trade.

Mr. Jay: I hope shortly to put formal proposals on the arrangements to be applied to imports of cotton textiles after

the end of 1965 to exporting countries including Hong Kong. I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Mapp: Does my right hon. Friend recall the statement of the chairman of Courtaulds recently in which this modern capitalised industry, as it is becoming, sought a clear and forthright statement of policy such as I hope he will be able to give to the textile industry in the next week or so?

Mr. Jay: Yes Sir. We hope to achieve a limitation of total imports into this country from the end of this year onwards in order to give reasonable stability to the industry.

Mr. A. Royle: Why is the President of the Board of Trade taking so long to come to a conclusion in this matter? The delay is causing great damage to the Colony of Hong Kong's trade at present. Secondly, will he give an assurance that, in any action he proposes, he will maintain the individual quota for each territory and not institute a global quota?

Mr. Jay: The reason why it is taking some time is that there are several countries involved in the negotiation and not all of their views exactly coincide with ours.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While fully realising the importance of this aspect of our import problem for Lancashire, will my right hon. Friend consider, since a large part of our present serious international economic situation is due to the excess of imports generally, not only textiles, whether it is time that the Government devised a planned economic import policy as a whole?

Mr. Jay: We are devising precisely a plan for cotton textile imports over the years following the end of this year, and I fully agree that the present balance of payments prospect is an additional argument for our setting some limit on these imports.

Mr. Barber: Have these proposals the full backing of the Cotton Board?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I would not say that they had the full backing of the Cotton Board. This is a controversy in which any solution is bound to displease most of the parties concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is bound to. We had


all better recognise that frankly. I am trying to achieve the most equitable possible compromise.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What other authorities and expert bodies besides the Cotton. Board is the right hon. Gentleman consulting?

Mr. Jay: I have consulted both sides of industry, and I have met a number of hon. Members who put their views to me as well as the cotton trade unions.

Waste Paper

Mr. Ennals: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the supply of waste paper is barely sufficient to maintain reasonable stocks at the Mills; and what action the Government is now taking to encourage the collection of waste paper for use within the paper and board industry.

Mr. Jay: I know that the amount of waste paper at present being received by paper and board mills is less than their requirements. The action being taken to increase waste paper collection, was described in the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on 15th July.

Mr. Ennals: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a good deal of concern in the paper industry about this shortage? Is there anything that he can do to make it more widely known and to stimulate local authorities and other bodies in the collection of waste paper?

Mr. Jay: The "little Neddy" for this industry has set up a working party to make proposals, and we hope that we shall have some proposals shortly.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the saving to our balance of payments from the collection of waste paper is a very considerable sum, running into millions of pounds per annum? Would he, therefore, have consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to ascertain what further assistance can be given to local authorities to encourage them to increase their collections?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. I have already been doing that for some time past.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government themselves have been making a very considerable contribution towards solving the shortage of waste paper?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, and so have the Opposition.

Trade with Denmark

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present imbalance of British trade with Denmark; and what is being done to step up British exports, particularly of coal.

Mr. Jay: The figures for our trade with Denmark can be obtained from Table IV of the Overseas Trade Accounts. A wide range of Government services is available to help British exporters to Denmark, as to other markets. The excellent results of last autumn's British Week are being energetically followed up by British exporters with the assistance of the Board of Trade and the Export Council for Europe. We are giving vigorous support to the National Coal Board's efforts to improve coal exports, and are in close touch with the Danish Government on this subject.

Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these measures will lead to a balance of trade between this country and Denmark, and, if so, how long it will take?

Mr. Jay: We are trying to achieve that result. At the moment our exports to Denmark are increasing.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many of the highly efficient firms in this country are too small to maintain export organisations in foreign countries? Would it be possible for the Board of Trade to set up a collective selling organisation so that small firms could be enlisted in the export drive?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are investigating that, and we hope to have a report sooner or later.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the excessive quantities of cheap Danish poultry meat which


are coming to this country—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better get on with exporting.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the stopping of these imports be a great help in correcting our imbalance of trade with Denmark? [Interruption.]

Mr. Jay: While welcoming the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), I must say that I do not see any specially good reason for resisting these poultry imports more than any other type of imports.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it a general practice of his Department to issue leaflets on any legislation and regulations concerning consumer protection.

Mr. Darling: I sympathise with this suggestion but each case must be considered on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING POLICY (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has now made to the President of the United States of America with a view to persuading that country to subscribe to a more liberal shipping policy; and what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in securing more co-operation and a better understanding between these two countries in this field.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir, though there are, of course, frequent exchanges of view at official level which have, I think, had a beneficial effect.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strength of the American shipping lobby and the success that it has had in the field of flag discrimination and flag reservation and more recently in objecting to the purchase of warships constructed in British shipyards? Yet Her Majesty's Government seem intent on buying all their weapons and aircraft from the United States. Will the right hon. Gentleman

try to secure a better balance in this trade?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, but I most certainly agree with what he said about the strength of the American shipping lobby, both now and for very many years past. But we have made quite clear, as the previous Government did, our determination on the question of flag discrimination and the other matters raised by American shipping policy.

Sir C. Osborne: On the wider issue of Anglo-American trade, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the fact that the Americans sold to us last year £250 million more than they bought from us? Could not something be done to readjust that trade to help our balance of payments problem?

The Prime Minister: I think that the figure actually was £257 million, but I am speaking from memory. I remember that in the 1959 Conservative manifesto it was claimed that the Government had a surplus of trade with America and were going to increase it. It is, therefore, £270 million out on that, and I agree with the urgency of the point as put by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PAPERS (CLASSIFICATION)

Viscount Lambton: asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the reclassification of secret Government papers.

The Prime Minister: Review of the classification of Government papers is a continuing process.

Viscount Lambton: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Member, I should say—may I ask him to bring the fact that there has not been a reclassification of papers to the notice of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who seems to act as if there has been one?

The Prime Minister: I would ask the hon. Member not to blame me; I voted "Powell". As to the second part of the supplementary question, the hon. Member will remember that we have


had a very full exchange across the Floor of the House on the very question which I think he has in mind. It does not raise the question of the classification of documents, which is, in fact, going on all the time.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the reclassification mean that it might be possible for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who expressed great interest last week in the paper which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had received on the breeding habits of lobsters, to receive it having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, seems to share with lobsters one particular characteristic—namely, going in perpetual fear of being boiled alive?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what that has to do with breeding habits. But when I have had time to study this important State paper I will consider whether it might not be made available more widely to hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND (USE)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for determining whether land should be used for agriculture, housing or the construction of reservoirs.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are responsible for individual planning decisions in Scotland, Wales and England, respectively, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Might I ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of that illuminating reply? First, is it not a fact that our increasing population and our need for housing are posing a growing threat to both the beauty and the capacity to produce food of our countryside, and is it not, therefore, of the utmost importance that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources should work effectively? Secondly, is it not also a fact that the present Minister of Land and Natural Resources is not able to work effectively because his functions have largely been usurped or hived off by two other Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, about the continuing problem of the requirements of land for housing and industry and what this means in farm production and amenity. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is responsible for general land planning in the country as a whole, but individual planning decisions and appeals from local authorities are a matter for my three right hon. Friends as stated in my original Answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But how can the Minister of Land and Natural Resources be effectively responsible for the planning of land use when he is not responsible for and has no control over individual planning decisions which, in sum total, make up the working of a land policy?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is, in general, responsible for seeing that, taking the country as a whole, we have the right allocation of land between agriculture, national parks, forestry, provision for water supply and the rest. It would prevent him from doing this and burden him too much if he had to handle also individual planning decisions which arise from the functioning of local government, for which my three other right hon. Friends are responsible.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: But surely the Prime Minister will agree that it is not only a matter of individual decisions on planning applications but that the Minister has no responsibility or jurisdiction in regard to the consideration and confirmation of development plans of local planning authorities?

The Prime Minister: That was my point. These are local authority responsibilities and it is right that the Departments in charge of housing and local government should have these decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST

Mr. Jackson: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for keeping the House informed of developments in the Far Eastern situation in so far as Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities are involved during the Summer Recess.

The Prime Minister: The usual channels of communication will be employed and Standing Order 117 is available for use if required.

Mr. Jackson: In view of the worsening situation in the Far East and Vietnam in particular, and since there is genuine anxiety in the country about the crisis, will my right hon. Friend consider, short of recalling Parliament, reporting to the nation either on television or through major Press conferences at least once or twice during the Recess?

The Prime Minister: The Government, like all previous Governments, will respect not only the letter but the spirit of Standing Order No. 117. If a really grave development occurred which required the recall of Parliament, then we should immediately recall it. Keeping the public informed of developments can be done easily without necessarily holding a Press conference.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Government intend drastically to cut defence expenditure, may we be assured that, during the Recess and after, British troops east of Suez will not be denied on financial considerations the facilities and reinforcements they may need for the defence of Malaysia and other British interests?

The Prime Minister: Our record in this matter, both continuing and extending the policy of the previous Government towards Malaysia, is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman. There is no question whatever of denying our troops the facilities and reinforcements they need if, unhappily, this confrontation is to continue. One of the aims of the general defence review is to save expenditure and foreign exchange costs and we shall report to the House when that review is ready.

Mr. A. Henderson: Following the very important statement made yesterday by President Johnson concerning the desirability of United Nations intervention in the Vietnam conflict with a view to bringing it to an end, may we take it that Her Majesty's Government will support or even take any initiative during the Recess to ensure that the matter is brought before the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, if we think that will be helpful. I have previously

explained our hope and intention about initiating action in the Security Council, but after taking soundings we were not convinced that this would be most helpful towards getting initiatives going.
I may add, in view of the strictures of right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the mission to Hanoi by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and about the Commonwealth Peace Mission, and their claim that these might upset the Americans, that I was glad to see that President Johnson yesterday not merely paid tribute for the second time to the idea of the Commonwealth Mission but went out of his way to pay tribute to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister agree that, during the Recess, in the very serious situation which now exists, it is of the utmost importance that he should keep open the channels of the co-Chairmanship which can, through diplomatic means, be used effectively in this situation, as indeed it was used during the difficulties in Laos? As the right hon. Gentleman has sometimes shown some reluctance to use this means, will he assure us that he will take the utmost steps through diplomatic channels to keep these lines open?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have made clear in repeated foreign affairs debates our desire to use the co-Chairmanship machinery. I gave lengthy details in last week's debate of the approaches we have made to Mr. Gromyko in London, Vienna and Moscow. It has been an almost continuous process since the beginning of the year.
The trouble is that the Russian co-Chairman so far is not agreeable to joining in the reactivating of the Geneva Conference. One of the main aims of the Commonwealth Peace Mission is to create the conditions in which the two Chairmen could act. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, if it is not possible to get the Soviet Union to move because it thinks that this is a matter for Hanoi and nothing to do with the Soviet Union, all we can do is keep on trying—which is what we shall do.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTMASTER-GENERAL (SPEECH)

Mr. Box: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster General in Cardiff on 19th June on rising prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Box: Is the Prime Minister aware that the speech contained the statement that the Government do not raise prices but that they are raised by the business community, often without justification? Does not the Prime Minister agree that this was an extraordinary statement from a Minister who, only a few weeks ago, gave an unprecedented rise to postal workers and increased the cost of stamps by 33⅓ per cent.? Will the Prime Minister now refute this irresponsible and stupid statement of Government policy?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said about the business community is in many respects justified and that is why we have set up the Prices and Incomes Board to which we can refer cases when prices are put up irresponsibly. Postal charges were increased only after the most careful scrutiny and after very full collective consideration. The hon. Gentleman really should not raise this matter, because he knows perfectly well that the last Government knew that there was a deficit of £100 million on the Post Office account but did not tell the country. They did not put up the charges. They left it for us to do after the election.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY EXPENDITURE

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure co-ordination of the efforts of the Ministers of Defence, Aviation and the Treasury, in securing reductions in miliary commitments overseas and in expenditure on the purchase of military equipment with foreign currency.

The Prime Minister: Those necessary, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now more necessary than ever to cut military expenditure overseas

and in particular where we are using foreign currency? Is he further aware that he would get virtually unanimous support on this side of the House if he were to announce now that the Government will not buy the F111A from the United States?

The Prime Minister: As I have made clear, we are having a very thorough defence review—the most thorough review of its kind probably since the war. One of the main elements must be to get reasonable economy in budgetary expenditure and, perhaps above all, in overseas expenditure. When the review is completed we shall report to the House. Part of the review will, of course, cover not merely bases and commitments but also the question of weapons and aircraft. Until the review is completed we cannot take decisions on that. No decision has been taken yet to buy the F111A.

Mr. Marten: In view of the financial overseas difficulties, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was absurd to cancel the TSR flying programme? Will he not reconsider this?

The Prime Minister: The cutting out of a programme costing in all £750 million—

Mr. Marten: I referred to the flying programme.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry. I thought the hon. Gentleman meant the original cancellation. I do not think that the testing and flying programme would have made very much difference to overseas expenditure. I would remind him that, when our balance of payments deficit last year was far worse than it is now, it was the Government of which he was a member who embarked on the purchase of American Phantom aircraft.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Question No. Q6 holds the master key to nearly all the pressing problems facing the country? Does he also agree that the £400 million a year reduction by 1969–70, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, does not mean a reduction from £2,100 million to £1,700 million a year, but is really a reduction in the projected expenditure if the previous Government's military programme had been carried out


unchecked and that it means not a reduction in estimates, but an increase?

The Prime Minister: I agree that if not this Question at any rate the Answer to it holds at any rate part of the key to the solution of not only our general economic difficulties but the balance of payments problem, because the whole of our projected deficit this year is less than our estimated total overseas Government expenditure, of which military expenditure is the greatest part. But I would not want my hon. Friend to think that it is easy to cut these totals in the way he has in mind. The natural increase, the natural escalation, in the cost per man in the Services and also the fact that such a high proportion of the total cost is represented by Service pay and is therefore a direct function of the numbers in the Services make it very difficult to make the kind of cut my hon. Friend has in mind. What our review—and it will be a painful review—involves is stopping the automatic increase in total expenditure which would have occurred year by year if we had continued the previous Government's programme unchecked.

Mr. Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the statement by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the intention was to reduce defence expenditure by £400 million by 1969–70, did not mean £400 million off this year's defence bill, but £400 million off the present estimates of the bill for five years ahead?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I made that plain at Question Time a couple of weeks ago. As I said, the programme which we inherited—and I am not underestimating the difficulties of cutting it or the problems which arise—is the one to which my right hon. Friend referred and it is that which we wish to bring down by £400 million. I agree that, although we would like to do so, it is inconceivable and impossible to cut this year's programme by that amount.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, the budgeted expenditure on land and buildings alone in Aden for 1965–66 is £7 million and that this is a continuing running cost on the country? Is it not

necessary for the Government some day to contemplate the cutting down of our obligations overseas?

The Prime Minister: As I have made clear, the review will cover questions of bases and the commitments and obligations which relate to those bases. Our first decision in this programme was substantially to reduce costly elements of expenditure. I refer to the two aircraft cuts when members of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own party, led by him on that occasion, insisted on voting against the Government's cuts in military expenditure.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Edward Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 2ND AUGUST—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which it will be proposed should be taken formally to allow a debate on the Opposition Censure Motion.
Lords Amendments to the Monopolies and Mergers Bill.
Remaining stages of the Consolidation Measures, which were read a Second time on Wednesday, 28th July, and Second Reading of two further consolidation Bills:
Hire Purchase Bill [Lords]
Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
Afterwards, the Motion on the Prayer Book (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
TUESDAY, 3RD AUGUST—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on Roads until seven o'clock, to be followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.
WEDNESDAY, 4TH AUGUST—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Annual Report and Accounts of the Electricity Council and of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
Remaining stages of the Hire Purchase Bill [Lords], and the Hire Purchase


(Scotland) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
Afterwards, we propose to facilitate consideration of the following Private Members' Bills:
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [Lords] and Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Bill.
THURSDAY, 5TH AUGUST—It Will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 p.m.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House three questions? First, can he assure the House that the Prime Minister himself will be present to take part in the debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure on Monday? Secondly, can he tell us when the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess will be taken? Thirdly, can he tell us the date on which the House will resume after the Recess in order to complete the Government's business, which still remains uncompleted as a result of their mismanagement of our affairs?

Mr. Bowden: On the first question, I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) whether he will be in his place on Monday to take part in the debate. I can assure him that he need have no worries and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be in his place on Monday to reply to the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten one of his former occupations. He has forgotten that it is usual to announce the date of the Recess and the date of resuming and the date of Prorogation and the date of the next Session of Parliament on a day in the week before the Adjournment of the House.
As to when the Motion for the Adjournment will be taken, I refer him to a reply given by a famous predecessor of his at this Box who said, "One day in the week before it actually happens".

Mr. Grimond: When will the promised statement on the negotiations with Rhodesia be made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that during the Recess no agreement with Rhodesia will be made contrary to the statements by the Government in the House?

Mr. Bowden: The statement will be made tomorrow, but we ought to await the statement before making up our minds about what is likely to happen during the Recess.

Mr. Charles Morris: In any consideration which my right hon. Friend gives to the allocation of parliamentary time, will he bear in mind the desirability of finding time to discuss the important North-West Study?

Mr. Bowden: All these things will be borne in mind, but very little Parliamentary time is now left in this Session.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the life of the present Government there has been a Budget every 95 days? In view of that, and as the next is due on 30th October, will he ensure that the House meets before then?

Mr. Bowden: I take note of the fact that the hon. Gentleman objects.

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the very serious announcement by President Johnson last night on the extension of the war in Vietnam and the general worsening of the international situation, will the Leader of the House consult the Foreign Secretary and ask him to make a statement before the House goes into the long Recess, so that we can have at least a brief review of this very dangerous situation, with all its implications for the people of this country?

Mr. Bowden: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter by raising it on the Adjournment on Thursday of next week, or on the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in a statement yesterday the Minister of Transport referred in passing to the Report of the Devlin Committee. We had previously expected the publication of this Report in May and later at the beginning of July. Can he now give an assurance that that important Report will be out before the House rises next week?

Mr. Bowden: I understand that that is to be the position, but I cannot absolutely be sure.

Mr. Popplewell: Can my right hon. Friend announce what steps he has taken to meet the request, made to him some few weeks ago, to arrange for some type of proxy voting for sick Members? Is he aware that now Members are being brought to the House and put to bed in the House? This is very serious indeed and beneath the dignity of this assembly. Can he say whether the Select Committee on Procedure has yet given consideration to this very important matter, and, if so, with what result?

Mr. Bowden: This is an extremely serious matter, as I think both sides of the House would agree. I promised to refer this to the Select Committee on Procedure and that has been done. I am not quite sure how far it has got with its deliberations.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will be able to provide time before the end of this Session to discuss the Hunter Committee Report on salmon fisheries in Scotland?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I do not think so. Not before the end of the Session.

Dr. David Kerr: Can my right hon. Friend now say when the House will have an opportunity to debate the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with the Finance Bill?

Mr. Bowden: During the present Session, Sir. I hope to have a full day's debate, a debate on the three Reports and any recommendations which the Government may make.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us when the White Paper on land policy, about which he has been answering questions regularly since Easter, will appear, or will he now say that it will not appear and has been scrapped, together with the bulk of the Queen's Speech?

Mr. Bowden: The answer is precisely the same as the one I have been making since Easter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the debate on electricity on Wednesday will include Scottish electricity? I understand that he has given time for certain Private Members' Bills on Wednesday. Can he

tell me why he is not giving time to my own Parliament Bill, which seeks to give a courteous smack in the eye to the House of Lords?

Mr. Bowden: I am not absolutely sure whether the Scottish Generating Board will be included in Wednesday's debate. I would have to have notice of that question. The Private Members' Bills down for next Wednesday are the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, Third Reading, which has been through all stages in the House of Lords, and is non-controversial, and the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Bill, which is also non-controversial. I very much doubt whether my hon. Friend's Bill on Parliament is non-controversial.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is the first year for many years that there has not been a debate on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that we in the Principality take a very poor view of the Government not finding time for such a debate?

Mr. Bowden: I know of no reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman should imagine there will not be a debate on Welsh affairs this year.

Sir Knox Cunningham: At the specific request of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, may I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be time for the Steel Bill to be introduced this Session?

Mr. Bowden: There would be time if the Session were extended, but I do not anticipate that that will now happen.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 220, on Public Service and Armed Forces Pensions—
[That this House, recognising the hardship of public service pensioners and those retired from the armed forces, and especially of the older pensioners in these groups whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service and the armed forces, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce special provisions to improve such pensions.]
which has been signed by a number of his hon. Friends, and the Amendment to it—
[Line 5, at end add "and to make a statement before the end of this Parliamentary session".]
asking for a statement to be made before the end of this Session? Will my right hon. Friend say whether such a statement can be made?

Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour dealt with this point in his winding-up speech last night. I do not know that I can add to it.

Mr. Chataway: In view of Press reports today that the Education Department is unable to give any details about the stop on university building, on college education building and on technical college building, will the Leader of the House say that we may have a statement on the subject, to clear up the confusion?

Mr. Bowden: I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It would be an appropriate subject for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.

Mr. Snow: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in connection with Monday's business, the publication of the popular edition of the O.E.C.D. Report, which shows quite clearly where the blame lies for our present economic difficulties?

Mr. Bowden: I have read this very interesting Report and I understand that copies ate available, by signing a green form in the Vote Office, for hon. Members who desire them.

Mr. Sandys: Can the Leader of the House say, whether before the Recess, a further statement will be made about the serious situation in Cyprus, about which concern was expressed on both sides of the House yesterday?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot say anything finally, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend about it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we must go on now.

RESERVE ARMY (REORGANISATION)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With the permission of the House, I will make a statement about the Government's plans to reorganise the Reserve Army.
It has become clear that the tasks of the Reserve Army have changed so radically as to require a reorganisation no less comprehensive than that introduced by Lord Haldane nearly 60 years ago. It is no longer realistic to think in terms of the Territorial Army as a force for the defence of the United Kingdom itself or as providing a framework on which general preparations can be made for a major conventional war abroad. This leaves the rôle of aid to the civil Power after a nuclear attack as the sole remaining commitment for some 60 per cent. of Reserve Army manpower. The Government have decided, in the course of the current review of home defence, that this cannot of itself justify the retention of the Territorial Army in its present form.
The future rôle of the reserves will be to provide, first, some individuals and a few units to be called out at any time to reinforce the Regular Army; secondly, the reinforcements needed to support the Regular Army in limited war; and, thirdly, such reinforcements for N.A.T.O. as our commitments require.
To meet these requirements, the Government propose a force of about 50,000 volunteer reservists. It will incorporate both the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve; and it might be called the Territorial Reserve. Volunteers of the Territorial Army have served this country well in two world wars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I pay tribute to what they and members of the Army Emergency Reserve have done in the past and hope that the same spirit of service can be maintained in the future.
Most of the units of the new Territorial Reserve will be based on areas of the country like the present Territorial Army units; and some, like the present Army Emergency Reserve, will be recruited, trained and administered by central headquarters. A substantial proportion of the force will consist of logistic units, as the


Regular Army has the greatest need for reserves of this kind.
In order that the liability of the reorganised Reserve may be more closely related to the tasks to be performed, it must be similar to that of the present Army Emergency Reserve (Category I). This liability for service will be recognised by a bounty of £60 a year. Those volunteers who accept a T.A.E.R. "Ever-ready" type liability will receive a bounty of £150 a year. We foresee a need for about 8,500 of these volunteers, and we intend to give ex-Regular soldiers on the Reserve the opportunity of volunteering for the "Ever-ready" liability on the same terms as Territorial reservists. We also propose that Regulars enlisting in future should, when serving in the Regular Reserve, have call-out liabilities similar to those of the Territorial reservists. The higher state of readiness which we shall expect will be reflected in training and equipment.
It is estimated that this reorganisation will ultimately produce a saving of the order of £20 million a year.
Legislation will be needed to give effect to the changes we propose. Meanwhile, the Government hope that all existing Reserve Army units will continue to function. Training will continue in 1966–67 as planned and we have under consideration some interim increase in the rates of training bounty for next year. We shall now consult with representatives of the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations about the means by which our proposals should be given effect.
The reduction we shall be making in the size of the Reserve Army will mean that a much smaller number of Regular Army officers and men will be needed to help in its training and administration. Officers and soldiers who are required to retire prematurely will be given fair compensation.
The majority of the civilians employed by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association and some Army Department employees will become redundant. So far as we can, we shall offer them alternative employment; but, failing this, the normal superannuation arrangements will apply to Ministry of Defence (Army Department) employees and compensation will

be provided for T.A. Association employees.
It is the intention to publish details of our proposals in a White Paper in the late autumn, but I thought it important that the House should be told their main outline now.

Mr. Soames: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the comparison which he has made of the reforms that he has announced with those of Lord Haldane is totally false inasmuch as Lord Haldane created a Reserve Army and the right hon. Gentleman is destroying it? The reduction of the order which he announced spells effectively the end of the Territorial Army as we have known it and of the safeguards which it provides for the nation to meet any unforeseen eventuality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will wish to study the statement, with all its ramifications, and the White Paper which he mentioned? Meanwhile, may I ask him three questions?
First, how many of the 50,000 which he mentioned will be from the Territorial Army? Secondly, the present establishment of the Territorial Army is 86 infantry battalions, 20 armoured regiments and 45 gunnery regiments. How many of these will remain under his plan, and how many of the total 50,000 will be in these arms? Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was withdrawing from the Territorial Army the rôle of aid to the civil Power after a nuclear attack. Does this mean that the Government intend to abandon all further expenditure on civil defence?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we deplore the fact that this decision, with all its far-reaching effects, should have been taken partly to relieve the economic pressure which has been created by the Government's policies and partly as a sop to the Left wing of his party, whose avowed desire is to reduce the country's defences?

Mr. Healey: I think that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that those last remarks were totally unworthy of him in the responsible position which he now holds. He asked a number of questions, and I shall seek to answer them, although of necessity my answers may be as long as the questions which provoked them.
First, on the Lord Haldane analogy, the situation of Britain and of Britain's defence problems has changed very substantially in the last 60 years, as they changed in the 60 years preceding Lord Haldane's reforms. Any Government would be failing in their duty to the nation if they did not tailor their defence forces to the real needs of the present time.
The present Reserve Army system, for which the right hon. Gentleman is personally responsible—he introduced it in 1960—costs us £38 million a year and it wastes a lot of men and money on forces which we do not need and fails to provide forces which we do need. Two-thirds of the members of the Territorial Army are committed to a home defence rôle which is not justified and has little to do with what most of them volunteered for. The other one-third cannot easily be used for the purposes for which they are really needed and for which they joined because they have the wrong sort of liability and inadequate training and equipment. We are proposing, instead, a streamlined force specifically tailored to meet the real military needs of the nation. We shall also save the nation £20 million a year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me how many of the 50,000 new reservists will come from the Territorial Army. I would estimate about 80 per cent. He asked me about the units and the proportion of teeth to tail in the new reserve. Half of the new reserve will be teeth arms, and, of those, half will be armoured units, artillery and infantry, and half engineers and signals. The other half of the total will be logistic units. Some of the units which we are proposing to keep in combatant teeth arms will be an armoured "recce" regiment, four artillery regiments, two S.A.S. battalions, one "para" battalion and 13 infantry battalions corresponding to the brigades of infantry in the Regular Army and not to the present county basis on which the Territorial Army is organised.
Finally, on the home defence rôle, it is certainly not the Government's intention that expenditure on home defence shall cease. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be putting proposals in ibis field to the House in the near future. However, I must say to the

right hon. Gentleman that it is quite clear, as a result of the studies which we have made, that there is no case for spending £20 million a year of the defence budget to provide support for the civil authorities in the post-nuclear phase of a nuclear war. In the first place, if we try to prepare for every single contingency, we will bankrupt ourselves. This is an unlikely contingency. Moreover, if it came about, conditions of unimaginable horror would supervene, and it is entirely speculative whether the Territorial Army would be of great value in such a situation.
What is clear as a result of the inquiries which we have made is that to provide an adequate force along these lines for civil defence in the post-nuclear phase would cost a great deal more than the £20 million at present allocated to this purpose by the previous Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the decision which the Government have reached in no way detracts from the valuable services rendered by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations in the past, but that a drastic change is required in our reserve forces? Does he know that for several years past many high-ranking military officers and experts have advocated a substantial and drastic change in the reserve forces and that it has been argued effectively that our reserve forces, whatever name may be given to them and however they are designated, should be closely allied to the regular force of the Army? Further, is he aware that we welcome the decision which the Government have taken?

Mr. Healey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I should like to pay a personal tribute to the service provided to the Territorial Army by many Members of the House, including, I think, the new Leader of the Opposition. But situations change, but what has not changed is the need for men of public spirit to serve in a volunteer capacity as a reserve in the country's forces. This opportunity is provided by the new structure which we have in mind. I hope and believe that the existing Territorial Army Associations and the Territorial Council will co-operate with us in working out the details of the scheme which will preserve in the new organisation which we propose as much


as is humanly possible of the existing Territorial Army organisation and spirit.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The House must be somewhat amazed by the dogmatism which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed about the likely future pattern of war. I hope that he has read what Lord Montgomery said, namely, that only one thing is certain about war and that is its uncertainty. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again at this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question of the need for a territorial basis for civil defence and help to the civil Powers? This seems to be entirely lacking as far as we can see.
Finally, when he comes to review home defence as a whole—and I agree that the cutting back of some aspects of civil defence would be quite right—would he consider whether there should be some form of home defence on a Territorial or Reserve Army basis, which is, I believe, essential to this country?

Mr. Healey: I am deeply aware that decisions in this respect are bound to be based on inadequate evidence and to require a large element of judgment. But the plain fact is that we cannot shirk our responsibility to the nation to use our judgment in taking the best decision which we believe possible on the evidence available. If we attempted to prepare for every conceivable contingency, we should be bankrupt. Moreover, we would fail to be properly prepared for contingencies which seem most likely. The Government have not taken this decision without the most careful thought about its implications and consequences.
On the other question which the right hon. Gentleman asked, as I said, the Home Secretary will be putting forward proposals for the reorganisation of home defence as a whole, taking account of the decision already taken by the Government that further expenditure on the Territorial Army in this rôle is not justified.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however strong our sentimental and emotional ties may be with the old units, I, at any rate, recognise that their rôle is wholly incredible in the modern context and that it is certainly not only

from the Left wing of the party that my right hon. Friend can look for support in attempts to readjust our defences to the realities of our situation?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I would point out that nobody who knows the problems of the Territorial Army believes that it should and could continue as at present. The Territorial Army Council itself has put forward proposals which we considered before making up our minds. I think that the Bow Group also made proposals very much on the lines which I have put to the House this afternoon.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what, if any, organisation will take over the vital third echelon rôle hitherto carried out by the T.A., without which the civil defence could never cope with any emergency, should one arise? Who will be responsible for the defence of this country against invasion should a conventional enemy force ever reach the Channel ports? Are not the Government wagering the future safety of the country in the supposition and assumption that there will never again be a major war of any kind in Europe?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. As I pointed out, one important rôle for the new Reserve Army will be to provide reinforcements to N.A.T.O., to which we are committed by our present obligations. We have to consider what contingencies are likely. We do not believe that it is likely that we shall have to meet a major land invasion of these islands by conventional forces or that this is a contingency which it is right for us to spend the taxpayers' money on preparing for. Even if we did think that, we certainly could not hope that the Territorial Army, in its present form, would meet that need.

Mr. Bellenger: It must be obvious to the House from the complexity of my right hon. Friend's statement, and the technical questions put to him from the Front Bench opposite, that the House needs an opportunity to examine the details of his statement and then debate it. Therefore, I have only one question to ask him and that is about the county associations. In all that he has explained to us, is it not essential that we should keep the county associations and try to bring the reserves within their orbit,


because they are and have been for a long time in touch with the trade unions and the employers and are best able to recruit the volunteer reserve forces which we need?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. First of all, the Territorial Associations will remain, carrying exactly their present responsibilities, until the reorganisation is complete, some time in 1968. We hope that they will remain after that, though, necessarily, their responsibilities will then be different, because we intend that the administration of the new Reserve Army shall be the responsibility of the Regular Army. But one of the matters on which we want the closest consultation with the Territorial Council and with the County Associations is on what is the most useful rôle which the Associations can play when the new Reserve Army is fully formed.

Mr. Hooson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was an overwhelming case for the reorganisation of the Reserve Army, that this has to take place, and that any responsible Government would have to take this step unless the country were prepared to run at some time the risk of bankruptcy? This applies to all Government Departments. Bearing this in mind, would he say what he means, in this context, by saying that "ultimately" there will be a saving of £20 million per annum? In how many years can we look forward to this saving?

Mr. Healey: It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation next year, following the publication of the White Paper giving the details of our proposals. This will mean that the reorganisation can begin to take effect in 1967 and I hope that the physical side of the reorganisation will be completed by the end of 1968. The full saving of £20 million a year may not be achieved until 1969.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Secretary of State aware that this cut, which apparently involves the elimination of 80 per cent. of the Territorial Army's present infantry strength, will mean that the Territorial Army will cease to operate in large areas, particularly in country districts? Will he bear in mind that the cut will also have a very serious effect on the Regular Army itself? Apart from the possible damage to recruiting, it is

also true that this will affect the careers structures of every senior officer and, particularly, every senior N.C.O. Is he looking at this question?

Mr. Healey: I am fully aware that this decision will come as a bitter blow to many members of the Territorial Army. I regret this as much as they do, but I believe the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was right to say that a Government who failed to take this step would have been irresponsible in their duty to the taxpayer and in their duty to provide the Regular forces with the sort of reserves which they need and can use.
On the question of some county areas being so sparse in volunteers that it will be impossible to form units there, this will, unfortunately, be true, though it will be possible, even in those areas, for men to volunteer for that part of the new reserve forces which consists primarily of individual reinforcements for Regular Army units.
On the other question, about the careers structure, a large number of officers and senior N.C.O.s will become surplus to the Reserve Army as a result of the reorganisation. If we attempted to reabsorb those men in the normal Regular Army there would be a total collapse of the careers structure and no promotion in many branches for many years. For that reason, we decided that it would be right to allow an equivalent number of officers and senior N.C.O.s to retire prematurely with suitable and fair compensation in order to preserve regular forces which have a careers structure sufficient to attract the necessary recruits.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), Mr. Speaker shall this day, in the case of every Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — REPORT [28th July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1965–66; NAVY EXPENDITURE, ARMY EXPENDITURE, AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956–66

CLASS I

VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

1. That a sum, not exceeding £3,196,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio.

VOTE 4. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

2. That a sum, not exceeding £984,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £215,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, of the National Economic Development Council, and of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and for certain grants in aid.

CLASS I

3. That a sum, not exceeding £68,149,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. House of Lords
247,000


2. House of Commons
1,955,000


5. Privy Council Office
38,000


6. Post Office Ministers
7,250


7. Customs and Excise
17,750,000


8. Inland Revenue
46,761,000


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
480,000


10. Civil Service Commission
547,000


11. Royal Commissions, etc.
364,000



£68,149,250

CLASS II

4. That a sum not exceeding £127,576,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Diplomatic Service
20,811,000


2. Foreign Services (including a Supplementary sum of £768,000)
12,870,000


3. British Council
3,862,000


4. Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £232,000)
15,805,000


5. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £145,000)
4,822,000


6. Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)
7,114,000


7. Ministry of Overseas Development
1,541,000


8. Overseas Aid (Multilateral)
3,613,000


9. Overseas Aid (Bilateral) (including a Supplementary sum of £4,210,000)
35,355,000


10. Overseas Aid (General Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
14,367,000


11. Overseas Aid (Colonial Development and Welfare)
6,500,000


12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission
916,000



127,576,000

CLASS III

5. That a sum, not exceeding £118,261,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Home Office
11,050,000


2. Scottish Home and Health Department
1,815,000


3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
9,250,000


4. Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)
1,393,000


5. Police, England and Wales
57,740,000


6. Police, Scotland
8,968,000


7. Prisons, England and Wales
15,805,000


8. Prisons, Scotland
2,166,000


9. Child Care, England and Wales
3,230,000


10. Child Care, Scotland
780,000


11. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)
53,000


12. County Courts
680,000


13. Legal Aid Fund
4,194,000







£


14. Law Charges
693,000


15. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
375,000


16. Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c., Northern Ireland
69,000



118,261,000

CLASS IV

6. That a sum, not exceeding £511,830,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Board of Trade
5,740,000


2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, &amp;c., and Shipping and Other Services)
5,043,000


3. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
27,961,000


4. Export Credits
900


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, &amp;c.)
900


6. Ministry of Labour
23,646,000


7. Ministry of Aviation
172,200,000


8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
900


9. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)
28,300,000


10. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
7,866,000


11. Ministry of Transport
3,090,000


12. Roads, &amp;c., England
124,998,000


13. Roads, &amp;c., Scotland
19,881,000


14. Roads, &amp;c., Wales
12,430,000


15. Transport Services
4,372,000


16. Transport (Railways Waterways Boards)
55,682,000


17. Ministry of Power
2,432,000


18. Ministry of Technology
8,761,000


19. Atomic Energy
9,425,000


20. Atomic Energy (Trading Fund Services)
900



511,830,600

CLASS V

7. That a sum, not exceeding £216,579,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
16,374,000


2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £151,000)
6,417,000






£


3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £550,000)
55,771,000


4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £265,000)
11,277,000


5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
104,833,000


6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
9,704,000


7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £26,000)
7,130,000


8. Food (Strategic Reserves)
900


9. Fishery Grants and Services
3,316,000


10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,757,000



216,579,900

CLASS VI

8. That a sum, not exceeding £1,929,690,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)
16,682,000


2. Scottish Development Department
2,705,000


3. Welsh Office
1,352,000


4. Housing, England
51,736,000


5. Housing, Scotland
10,947,000


6. Housing, Wales
3,376,000


7. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
457,240,000


8. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
46,530,000


9. Rate Deficiency Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
113,870,000


10. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
16,330,000


11. Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (including a Supplementary sum of £125,000)
600,000


12. Forestry Commission
8,694,000


13. Ministry of Health
3,706,000







£


14. National Health Service &amp;c. (Hospital Services, &amp;c.). England and Wales
371,178,000


15. National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales including a Supplementary sum of £5,218,000)
158,558,000


16. Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales
32,171,000


17. National Health Service (Superannuation, &amp;c.), England and Wales
900


18. National Health Service, &amp;c, Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £590,000)
72,003,000


19 National Health Service (Superannuation, &amp;c), Scotland
900


20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
5,716,000


21. National Insurance
205,600,000


22. Family Allowances
95,975,000


23. National Assistance Board
175,168,000


24. War Pensions, &amp;c.
79,552,000



1,929,690,800

CLASS VII

9. That a sum, not exceeding, £269,269,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz:—



£


1. Department of Education Science
3,341,000


2. Education: Departmental (England and Wales) (including a Supplementary sum of £185,000)
84,854,000


3. Awards to Students (England and Wales)
1,308,000


4. Scottish Education Department
17,403,000


5. Teachers' Superannuation (England and Wales)
900


6. Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland)
113,000


7. Universities and Colleges, &amp;c, Great Britain
128,074,000


8. Science Research Council
18,090,000


9. Natural Environment Research Services (Revised sum)
-757,000


9A. Natural Environment Research Council
3,457,000


10. Medical Research Council
6,852,000


11. Agricultural Research Council
6,208,000


12. Grants for Science
326,000



269,269,900

CLASS VIII

10. That a sum, not exceeding £5,529,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. British Museum
907,000


2. British Museum (Natural History)
589,000


3. Science Museum
298,000


4. Victoria and Albert Museum
529,000


5. Imperial War Museum
91,000


6. London Museum
50,000


7. National Gallery
114,000


8. National Maritime Museum
103,000


9. National Portrait Gallery
45,000


10. Tate Gallery
91,000


11. Wallace Collection
44,000


12. Royal Scottish Museum, &amp;c. (Revised sum)
102,000


13. National Galleries of Scotland
55,000


14. National Library of Scotland
89,000


15. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
25,000


15A. National Museum of Wales and National Library of Wales
497,000


16. Grants for the Arts (Revised sum)
1,900,000



5,529,000

CLASS IX

11 That a sum, not exceeding £235,316,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Public Building and Works
21,100,000


2. Public Buildings, &amp;c, United Kingdom
39,785,000


3. Public Buildings Overseas
5,811,000


4. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)
20,837,000


5. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)
41,415,000


6. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Air Force Department)
29,078,000


7. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation
6,965,000


8. Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories
868,000


9. Houses of Parliament Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)
583,000


10. Royal Palaces
580,000


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
965,000







£


12. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
1,009,000


13. Rates on Government Property (including a Supplementary sum of £2,103,000)
15,045,000


14. Stationery and Printing
13,775,000


15. Central Office of Information
6,200,000


16. Government Actuary
29,000


17. Government Hospitality
100,000


18. Civil Superannuation, etc.
31,170,000


19. Post Office Superannuation, etc.
900


20. Additional Married Quarters for the Ministry of Defence
900



235,316,800

CLASS X

12. That a sum, not exceeding £5,376,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Charity Commission
250,000


2. Crown Estate Office
133,000


3. Friendly Societies Registry
99,000


4. Royal Mint
900


5. National Debt Office
900


6. Publics Works Loan Commission
900


7. Public Trustee
900


8. Land Registry
900


9. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements
132,000


10. Ordnance Survey
2,729,000


11. Public Record Office
157,000


12. Scottish Record Office
51,000


13. Registrar General's Office
615,000


14. Registrar General's Office, Scotland
96,000


15. Department of the Registers of Scotland
900


16. National Savings Committee
1,109,000



5,376,400

CLASS XI

13. That a sum, not exceeding £71,129,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Broadcasting (including a Supplementary sum of £11,600,000)
56,497,000


2. Carlisle State Management District
900






£


3. State Management Districts, Scotland
900


4. Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
3,991,000


5. Supplements to Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services)
1,232,000


6. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
641,000


7. Irish Land Purchase Services
495,000


8. Development Fund
451,000


9. Secret Service
6,000,000


10. President Kennedy Memorial Appeal
500,000


11. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000)
781,000


12. Winston Churchill Memorial Fund
500,000


13. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
40,000



71,129,800

DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

14. That a sum, not exceeding £19,059,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain Joint Service Establishments; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, includinig international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

15. That a sum, not exceeding £391,737,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—



£


2. Royal Naval Reserves
1,377,000


3. Navy Department Headquarters
11,856,000


6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services
191,120,000


7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs
177,993,000


8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
9,391,000



391,737,000

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

16. That a sum, not exceeding £322,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—



£


3. Army Department Headquarters
6,600,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
117,140,000







£


5. Movements
23,320,000


6. Supplies
45,960,000


7. Stores and Equipment
115,000,000


10. Defence Lands and Buildings
14,700,000



322,720,000

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

17. That a sum, not exceeding £138,560,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—



£


3. Air Force Department Headquarters
4,780,000


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
45,820,000


5. Movements
19,600,000


6. Supplies
50,750,000


9. Non-effective Services
17,610,000



138,560,000

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

18. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,187,789 12s. 2d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February 1965 (H.C. 81) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,161,976 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts on the same Vote not offset by a saving in expenditure, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 29th January 1965 (H.C. 96) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1963–64

20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £656,417 16s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1964, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 15th February 1965 (H.C. 104) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 224).

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith with respect to each Resolution the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [28th July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, the sum of £4,434,965,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. MacDermot.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1966, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Orders of the Day — LABOUR PARTY (ELECTION PLEDGES)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Barber: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's failure to honour their election pledges.
As we approach the day when we rise for the Summer Recess, I think that both sides of the House will agree that it is not inappropriate to take stock of the events of this first Session of the Labour Government and, in particular, in this debate today, to ponder the contrast between promise and performance which, in a democracy, is rightly one of the most influential criteria governing the decisions of the electorate.
In the main, I propose to concern myself not with the casual proposals and promises of those Labour Members of little significance in their party, but with the specific election pledges made in the Labour Party's General Election manifesto and with pledges made by those who are now members of the Labour Government.
We are concerned in this debate not merely with a profusion of broken promises, which I shall show is on a scale unparalleled in modern times, but also—and I think that this is of more fundamental importance—with the effect of electoral deceit on the status of political life in this country. I say that because although politics in a free society is bound inevitably to throw up some men who command little respect, we have hitherto been fortunate, unlike many other countries, in attracting into Parliament, in the main, men and women of sincere convictions and high purpose.
But we shall not continue to do so if politics is thought of merely as a game in which one party is prepared to outbid the other with cynical disregard for the implementation of the pledges which they give. It is no good the First Secretary putting his hand on his forehead like that. I shall refer to him in a few minutes and to some of the things which he said during the General Election.
I believe that when the history of these times comes to be written the apposite chapter heading for last October's Socialist victory will be, "The Great Deception". The Government, in their

first Session, have dissipated virtually every ounce of good will with which they came to office, and they have done so not merely because they have exhibited a degree of incompetence which I think must have surprised even the Prime Minister at times; they have done so not merely because they have failed to fulfil the expectations of last October; they have lost the good will of the nation primarily because it is now clear to those who voted Socialist last October that they were the victims of a political swindle.
Let me turn to some of the specific promises made by Labour leaders. If I start with taxation I do so for three reasons. First, there were no promises made by the Leaders of the Labour Party at the last election which had wider coverage than those concerning taxation. Secondly, because Socialism has always been associated, I believe quite rightly, with high and rising taxation, a specific promise not to increase taxation was calculated to have, and did have, a profound effect on the uncommitted voter. Thirdly, there is no more blatent example of political deception than this particular promise.
Let me remind the House of the record—and I am pleased that the Prime Minister is to reply to the debate, because I want, first, to remind the House once again of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he appeared before millions of television viewers on 15th September. This is what he said:
we can
carry out our programme
without any general increase in taxation.
Does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by that statement? If he does will he now endorse that pledge by promising that during the lifetime of this Parliament taxation will be reduced by £500 million a year, the amount by which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already increased it, for there is no other way of redeeming that pledge? I will willingly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene now.

Hon. Members: Get on.

Mr. Barber: In that case I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer this question when he replies to the debate.
It was not only the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, for years, as we all know,


had been the architect of the Labour Party's taxation policy—and I am pleased to see him in his place this afternoon—made this misguided promise, that Labour
will not need to increase the general level of taxation to pay for its programme.
And, finally, the unequivocal undertaking of the man who it was known at the time would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the event of the Labour Party gaining power—and who is today, in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could hardly have made himself clearer when he said in his speech on the eve of the poll:
The whole basis of our case is that increased social expenditure will be financed out of the growing expansion of British industry.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Barber: Before hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer, there is a little more of that quotation. As if to make doubly sure that he got the votes he was seeking, he rammed home the point with these words:
As far as we are concerned, the fulfilment of our social programme depends upon the achievement of a faster rate of growth in the economy.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Barber: I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will cheer the next sentence which was uttered by the Chancellor:
We shall not cash cheques until the money is in the bank.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): Hear, hear.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear", but what is the simple truth? What has actually happened? Within six months of taking office the right hon. Gentleman had increased taxation by no less than £500 million a year.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Barber: Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not worry. I will be coming to the economic situation in a few moments. There is not an hon. Member in the House who would pretend that if the country had known last October what was in store for it the Labour Party would have won the three crucial marginal seats

which now give the Government their only authority to govern. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are all in favour of joy, but it cannot be wholly unconfined otherwise we cannot make progress. It is much easier to listen to one speech than to several speeches simultaneously.

Mr. Barber: As I was saying, every hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Labour Party would not have won the last election if it had been known that when in government hon. Gentlemen opposite would increase taxation by no less than £500 million a year. The fact is that the nation was duped, and every hon. Gentleman opposite knows it. If they do not accept my words let them put both their sincerity and their record to the test by going to the country this autumn.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Maxwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that had his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and all his other colleagues in the former Administration "come clean" with the nation about the £800 million deficit there would now be less than half the present number of hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Barber: A moment ago I said that I would deal with the economic position of last October shortly.
The tuth is that the Prime Minister dare not go to the country this autumn because he knows that not only will the nation note the contrast between their Government's promises and their performance, but that the nation will also note the contrast between the Labour Government's immediate taxation increases of £500 million a year and previous Conservative Governments' taxation cuts totalling more than £2,000 million a year.
It is as well to remember, when considering what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, that during the


13 years of Conservative administration we five times reduced taxation for all taxpayers. Now, in one fell swoop, the Labour Government, running true to form, are back on the old familiar Socialist road of high and rising taxation.
What of that other form of taxation, rates? I hope that the Prime Minister will deal with the pledges that were made concerning rates. What is preventing the Government now from honouring their pledge to give relief from rates? Why is it that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and other Ministers associated with this matter have been so coy? I remind the Prime Minister of the pledge made in the General Election manifesto of the Labour Party, a pledge to give relief to the ratepayer which was in no way qualified by reference to reviews or investigations.
These words appeared in that manifesto:
We shall also seek to lighten the burden of rates which today falls heavily on those with low incomes. While the reform of the rate system and investigation of alternative forms of local government finance may take some time to accomplish, we shall seek to give early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer.
The people really are entitled to know why nothing has been done. We all realise that the Government, as promised, have set up an inquiry, but during the election campaign the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench opposite, sniggering next to the Prime Minister, the First Secretary, went out of his way to deal with this very point. I hope that the First Secretary will take note of what he said. Perhaps he does not remember.

Hon. Members: Get on.

Mr. Barber: I will. The First Secretary referred to the inquiry which is now in progress and asked this simple question:
What are we going to do while we are waiting?
Then he answered his question in these words:
Labour will transfer some of the burden of the local ratepayers to the Government.
What does the right hon. Gentleman say about that today? That was a clear

promise to the electors at that time and they took him at his word. They will not do so next time, and then he will have to wipe the smile from his face. I have no doubt that the First Secretary was eminently successful in securing a few thousand more votes for the Labour Party, but what a sordid way of proceeding.
Why have the Government done nothing to help? Certainly, they cannot rely on the hackneyed excuse that they have not had enough parliamentary time, because the Minister of Housing and Local Government was presented with an ideal opportunity in December, when he had to fix the general grant to be given to local authorities for the next two years. If the right hon. Gentleman had meant to keep his promise all he had to do was simply to increase the proportion to be paid by the Exchequer. Nothing could have been more simple. But no. He chose not to do it. He deliberately acted in breach of the pledge which had been given, which was formally set out in the manifesto and endorsed by the First Secretary.
What is even worse is that the increases in rates this year under the Labour Government have soared beyond all expectations. If the House doubts my words I will, once again, give the figures of the percentage increases in recent years. In 1960–61 the increase was 7·3 per cent.; 1961–62, 7·3 per cent.; 1962–63, 8·8 per cent.; 1963–64, 10·5 per cent.; 1964–65, 8 per cent. And now, in this first year of Socialism, the rates are going up on average by no less than 14 per cent. The Prime Minister, the First Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government may all have forgotten the ratepayers, but I assure the House that the ratepayers will not so easily forget the three right hon. Gentlemen.
As to the cost of living, I do not propose to add to the compelling evidence adduced by my hon. and right hon. Friends in yesterday's debate. I would only say that there is not a man or woman in Britain who does not now regard with unmitigated cynicism the First Secretary's election boast that the rise in the cost of living
… can, must and will be halted.
For all the Labour Party's talk about co-operation with the trade unions, there is


no one, from the most humble elector to the Minister of Technology himself, who any more seriously pretends that the First Secretary's incomes policy is other than a monumental flop.
On top of the increased taxation and the increased rates there come the increased mortgage interest rates, which are also somewhat the concern of the First Secretary of State, in view of what he said during the election. If I were to retail to the House the innumerable promises made by almost every member of the Government and every Labour candidate concerning lower interest rates for the would-be home owner, I doubt very much whether we should rise for the Summer Recess next week.
They all stem, however, from the unequivocal promise to introduce specially favourable rates for "intending owner-occupiers", which was set out in the Labour Party's election manifesto. Of course, the masterly inactivity of the Minister of Housing and Local Government over these past few months has been common knowledge amongst those who are now having to pay the unprecedented rate of 6¾ per cent.—and, in some cases, 7 per cent.—for their mortgages.
But only last Thursday there was a gleam of hope. It then seemed that at last something might be done to help the owner-occupier, for there appeared the following newspaper report:
'Exploratory talks about a possible plan for subsidising house mortgages have been taking place between the Minister of Housing and his advisers and the council of the Building Societies Associaton.'
This was said yesterday by Mr. Donald Gould, the association's chairman. He said that an attempt was being made to find out how to implement the Government's election manifesto promises.
That was last Thursday. By Tuesday, only five days later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found the answer—the whole promised scheme was to be deferred indefinitely. It is no exaggeration to say that of the whole tarnished record of this Government, the unfufilled pledge to the owner-occupier is the most callous.
I say that because—and I am sure that every hon. and right hon. Member opposite knows this, also—those who are buying their own homes are frequently, and we see this in our constituencies, among

the most over-stretched financially of our middle-class society—

Mr. William Hamilton: What does the right hon. Gentleman know about that?

Mr. Barber: Those people switched to the Labour Party in their tens of thousands on the promise that they were to get a better deal. The Government have had every opportunity to redeem that pledge. They have not done so.
What reasons have been advanced for this lack of action? First, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that there was no time, but the whole world knows that but for the courageous action of a handful of hon. Members opposite the Prime Minister certainly took the view that there was time in this Session to nationalise the steel industry, and certainly there was time for a Finance Bill, which most people now agree was largely irrelevant to the difficulties we face—[Interruption.]
The second reason put forward is that the economic situation does not permit of the promised relief, but where is the Prime Minister's conviction which he so expressly and forcefully revealed in opposition? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not so vain as to read his own speeches, but perhaps I can remind him of this one—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): At least I write my own speeches.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will be telling us that he writes his own teleprompters soon.
This is what the right hon. Gentleman said when in opposition:
As a result of the Government's monetary policies … the householder is already paying what many people will consider to be an excessive rate of interest to the building societies though, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon made clear, that cannot be laid at the doors of the building societies. It must be laid at the door of the Government's monetary policies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1957; Vol. 472, c. 948–9.]
The right hon. Gentleman was right—let no one doubt now where the responsibility lies.
But perhaps the most blatant breach of faith of all concerns the specific promise of an income guarantee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member


for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for having drawn my attention to certain facts which I believe the whole House will, in view of what the Chancellor said two days ago, consider to be highly relevant. I want the House to be under no illusion as to the calculated electoral appeal of the way in which this pledge was given—and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State mumbling there. This, for many people who took the Labour Party at its word, is a very serious matter indeed.
I should also like the House to be under no illusion as to the significance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement two days ago, as I understood him to say, that there can be no question of introducing the income guarantee scheme for at least another year, and there was no hint of an undertaking that it might be introduced even after that. But, of course, even had the Chancellor of the Exchequer given such an undertaking, in view of what has happened during the past few months the whole nation would have received it as just another worthless Labour pledge.
If anyone doubts the electoral appeal of the income guarantee scheme and its coverage among the population, let me start by quoting a short passage from the Labour Party's document "New Frontiers for Social Security". It states:
… in addition to our long-term reform of National Insurance, there must be a special rescue operation designed to bring immediate relief to these forgotten millions. The remedy we have in mind is a quite novel kind of Income Guarantee …
Then came the General Election, and the widely- publicised passage in the Prime Minister's own election address, which I am sure he will remember well. He said:
An income guarantee will ensure that everyone has enough to live on as of right and without recourse to National Assistance. This will come without delay.
The Prime Minister, I understand, is to speak next in this debate, and on this matter, the whole country—or at least the millions who were enticed by that pledge—are entitled to the answer from the right hon. Gentleman himself.
And let us have no more of this nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—about the introduction of an income guarantee, scheme being dependent on the state of the economy. This, I will tell the

benches opposite, is a very important matter for millions of people, and if hon. and right hon. Members opposite treat it as a joke, and it is known outside, it will redound only to their discredit. There can be no question of the income guarantee scheme being dependent for its introduction upon the state of the economy.
I say that because, on this particular point, the Labour Party's election manifesto was crystal clear. The Labour Party document "The New Britain stated:
… we stress again that, with the exception of the early introduction of the income guarantee, the key factor in determining the speed at which new and better levels of benefit can he introduced, will be the rate at which the British economy can advance.
"With the exception of the early introduction of the income guarantee"—the House will see that of all the social security benefits promised by the Labour Party, this was the benefit that was specifically excepted from the provision that the timing depended on economic progress.
The Prime Minister, realising the electoral advantage to be gained by promulgating this scheme, repeatedly drove home the point during the election campaign. In a broadcast to the nation, he said:
… I pledge the Labour Government to urgent action to deal with this problem … to ensure to each a guaranteed and adequate income …
To millions of television viewers, on another occasion, he answered a question about retired people with these words:
What we are going to do now, and we're going to do it early because the problem is urgent and it's needed … is to provide a guaranteed minimum, below which no one will be allowed to fall.
Then he went on to say:
… substantially more than the existing National Assistance scale.
If I may divert for a moment from the misguided trust of the electorate in what the right hon. Gentleman said to the near ridiculous, there must be no more shattered Member of the Government than the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, whom I am happy to see in her place, for it was she who told the nation:
We have no doubt about it that with men like Harold Wilson, George Brown and Jim


Callaghan leading this country we shall be able to afford all the benefits outlined in this statement.
It is no disrespect to the right hon. Lady to say that perhaps on this occasion we can discount her gullibility, because she is not generally a very gullible person.
In the light of the Prime Minister's election manifesto, we are entitled to a full explanation from him. [Interruption.] It is all very well the Prime Minister once again talking to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary. I do not know whether he is discussing the answer, but I must tell him this, because we have never had an answer on the point before and he is committed on it in his election address. It will take a little more than the Prime Minister's slick banter if he is to get off this hook.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the passage from which he has just quoted he will see that of the five measures relating to social security, of which only the income guarantee was exempted from the relationship to the state of the economy, three have already been carried out.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member has not been following my argument with his usual perspicacity. I was referring to the income guarantee scheme. No doubt we shall have from the Prime Minister the reasons—apart from the economic ones, which are not relevant according to the "New Britain"—why it has not been introduced.
The Prime Minister will doubtless know—I hope that he will give me his attention, because this is a matter which concerns a quarter of a million old people. The Prime Minister will doubtless know that one of the reasons which has been given consistently for turning down the proposals in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), which, the House will remember, was intended to give the old-age pension to a quarter of a million men and women who are at present excluded, was the impending income guarantee scheme.
As the scheme is now to be deferred for at least a year, perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us whether, next session,

the Government, if they are still in office—[HON. MEMBERS: "We will be."]—will give time for my hon. Friend's Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is nodding. I do not know whether he is giving time or simply exuding a little confidence.

Mr. Callaghan: I was saying that we shall still be here.

Mr. Barber: I hope that the Prime Minister will say something on this point.
It is only because I want to leave plenty of time for my hon. Friends to develop the case which I have made that I do not propose to deal with the multitude of other pledges given by those who are now members of the Labour Government.

Mr. Ivor Richard: rose—

Mr. Barber: I cannot give way. I do not want to take too long. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will not give way, no bullying will make him.

Mr. Barber: I will give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged. A quarter of an hour ago the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would deal specifically with the economic situation last October. Does he and his party accept responsibility for the balance of payments situation as it was on 15th October, 1964? If he does, will the right hon. Gentleman answer, on behalf of his party, one simple question which we have asked for the last 10 months: should we, faced with that situation, have raised any taxes at all, and, if so, what?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member will not alter my speech one iota—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—for the simple reason that I intended to deal with that precise point.
There is not time to deal with all the pledges, for example, the pledge given, I do not doubt, in all sincerity by a member of the Administration for whom I have a great respect, and that is my successor at the Ministry of Health. I refer to the pledge, of which the Prime


Minister knows because he has dealt with it in the past, to set up four new medical schools at least. I was Minister of Health at the time when that pledge was given and I know the impact which it made on the family doctor. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us when he speaks whether this pledge is also discarded.
What about the hospital building programme? The Prime Minister, in his election address, promised—[Interruption.] I wish that the First Secretary would stop interrupting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] This is a question which, I am sure, the Prime Minister will want to answer, because in his election address he promised that the hospital building programme would be revised. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends what the result of that revision has been to date. As to building projects costing more than £100,000, there are to be no new ones this year. Twenty of the major projects which I approved for starting this year have now been posponed by the Minister of Health. No doubt the Prime Minister will wish to comment on this, because so far we have not had an answer on this point from any right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: rose—

Mr. Barber: I cannot give way. I do not want to take too long.
Other pledges were held out for higher education, technical colleges and universities. I understand that the building of these is now to be postponed in accordance with the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. I would not dream of entering the preserve of the Left-wing members of the Labour Party, so I leave them to pursue the pledges concerning the nationalisation of steel and nuclear policy.
On Monday, we are to have a debate on the economic situation. When I appeared on television with the First Secretary on Tuesday night, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced his measures, the First Secretary admitted that his right hon. Friend, in his statement, had given no reasons for the sudden switch in policy over the previous 12 days. I wish, therefore, as we are

to have a debate on the economic situation on Monday, to make only one point, which is relevant to this debate and which is the point raised by the two hon. Members in their interventions, a point which I intended to deal with in any event because it is relevant to the question of election pledges.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor in his statement, discarded one pledge after another. To the Prime Minister and to the two hon. Members who have intervened, I say that the time has now passed, for reasons which I will explain, when anyone in his right senses can any longer accept as an excuse the reference back to the situation last October. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I will explain why.

Mr. Richard: Answer the question.

Mr. Barber: Certainly, by the time of the autumn Budget in November last year—nobody will deny this—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure he will agree, at that time was in full possession of all the facts. He pretended to the nation that there were things he had not known until he got into office, but by November he was certainly in full possession of the facts, and he then introduced his autumn Budget and he told the House that he deemed it to be enough.
Then, in his April Budget, the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind again, and again he told us that he was taking all the action he then deemed to be necessary. He told us so in his Budget speech. Then, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, when the Chancellor followed me, he gratuitously made this statement to the House about his taxation proposals, and as it is so important and quite short I propose to remind the House of it.
The right hon. Gentleman said this—only 13 or 14 days ago:
There is a temptation to assume, because the effects of these measures"—
those were his Budget measures—
are not immediately obvious, that we should rush into further measures which would have the effect of restraining the economy even more. This would be an unfortunate thing to do and I am resisting the temptation to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 911.]
That was only a fortnight ago to the day. The electorate, in the light of those proposals, can draw only one conclusion,


and that is that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have failed.
On 15th October last year the Prime Minister set himself the objective of 100 days' dynamic action. What the right hon. Gentleman has achieved is nine months of creeping disillusion. The nation is sick and tired of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. They have forfeited the confidence of the British people. They have forfeited the confidence of our friends abroad.

Mr. Richard: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member persists in interrupting I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Barber: I would conclude by saying this to the right hon. Gentleman. If he has a jot of statesmanship left in him let him put the national interest first. Let him go to the country.

4.52 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
congratulates the Government on the progress so far made with the implementation of its election pledges, expresses its confidence that, contrary to the precedent of the past 13 years, the Government will in succeeding Sessions carry out in full the pledges made to the nation in its election manifesto, and regrets that throughout this present Session Her Majesty's Opposition have failed to put forward any evidence of alternative policies to enable the nation to rid itself of the economic difficulties bequeathed by the outgoing Government".
In moving this Amendment, my first task, an agreeable one, is to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on his election as leader of his party. I am not going to inflict on him the traditional courtesy of saying that I hope he will be there a long time and have a long and happy life on that Bench. We always say this on these occasions. I am sure he will. What I do want to say is that, as the House knows, it is necessary for the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to have many discussions of a kind which lead to the effective working of this House, and I look forward in the discussions to the same courtesies as I always had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member

for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), whether he was on this side of the House or the other.
Perhaps, secondly, I ought to explain to the House why I am speaking in this debate and hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on Monday also. It is not because of the desire to hog the time of the House. It is simply this, that we understood from the party opposite, before the events of the past week, that they would be putting down three Motions of censure; first, on the cost of living, which we had yesterday; the second, covering the whole broad record of the Government in relation to their election pledges, and a third one specifically related to economics, which is for next Monday. My right hon. Friends and I thought it right in those circumstances that the Ministers most directly concerned with economics should speak on Monday, and that in this debate, covering the whole range of Government policy, it would be appropriate that I should speak. This was before we knew the change of leadership in the party opposite was coming and knew that they wanted the debate next Monday to be a general one. I fully agree with their feeling that I should take part in that debate, too, but it was too late, of course, to alter the arrangements under which I was to speak in this debate today. I only hope the House will not get too tired of my voice in two successive debates.
I now turn to the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). It is the most bizarre censure Motion I have ever seen in my twenty years' experience of this House, and I am going to say why. First, what it does is to complain that we have in less than 300 days not yet done all the things that hon. and right hon. Members opposite failed to do or neglected to do, or refused to do or did not know how to do, not in 300 but nearly 5,000 days.
The second reason why I regard it as such an odd Motion is that it is presented as the culmination of a process we have been noting recently—a hypocritical identification of the party opposite with the needs and problems of various groups in the country be they ratepayers, be they owner-occupiers, be they council house tenants, regional hospital boards, or those who would have


been affected by the Bill of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—all those categories for whom right hon. Gentlemen opposite did less than nothing for 13 years. Suddenly—

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will bear in mind—will he not?—that for 13 years the Conservative Party was supported by the voters of the country.

The Prime Minister: I find that interesting. It is true that the Conservative Party was in power for 13 years. That was the point I was trying to make. But now we find that hon. and right hon. Members opposite suddenly get worked up about groups of people covered by what is now commonly known as the Airey Neave Bill, although they did nothing about them for 13 years. Now suddenly they are expressing their concern because they are in Opposition. If they had shown then one-tenth as much of the concern which they affect to show now, we should not have to face such problems as we do, social as well as economic.
The third point about this Motion is that it is really designed to conceal one very serious development we have noticed in our Parliamentary affairs, the fact that we now have an Opposition which in nine months has produced not a single proposal of policy on a single issue—except on immigration, where we have had two contradictory ones; and whether it has been on legislation, whether it has been in Supply debates, or censure Motion debates, every time we have had no proposition put forward and so must assume that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are clinging still in every particular to policies that have demonstrably failed the nation and which were adjudged by the nation as having failed.
I cannot remember an Opposition—not even in 1945–50, which was a much better one—which has relied so much on destructive criticism and put forward no alternatives to Government policies. It is all right to demand reductions in Government expenditure, as they do, but whether under the late leader, and also, I am sure,

under their new one, the Opposition have opposed every cut in Government expenditure we have proposed. It is all fun, but it is not opposition, and it is certainly not credible alternative Government.
On every Bill we have put forward they have either presented outright opposition, as in their campaign against our proposals for the modernisation of the tax structure, or they have paraded a hypocritical pretence of accepting a Measure which in their hearts they oppose, but accepting it because they feared the electoral consequences of opposing it. They give the impression of willing the end, and then shortly afterwards we find them trying to win uncovenanted electoral benefit by opposing the means, especially if the means involve finance. Again, we have seen them fall back on the last refuge of a timorous and divided opposition by saying that they agree with what we are doing but oppose the way we are doing it. That is what we get all the time.

Mr. Paul Bryan: Has the Prime Minister mixed up his two speeches? The debate today is on the Government's pledges.

The Prime Minister: That is the second interruption to which I have given way that did not add very much. I am going to deal with every point that has been made about pledges, but I am beginning by analysing the motives for the Motion, what is behind it, and what it seeks to cover up.
Before I come to the detailed charges made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am going to make two general points about the pledges that we gave in and before the election. The first was that our programme was for a full Parliament, not for a single Session, nor even for two Sessions. There were many who doubted our ability to carry through such a programme in a four-or five-year Parliament. Now they complain because we did not do it in nine months.
Secondly, I want to make clear that, in carrying through this programme, we said many times before the election that there must be priorities, priorities in legislation and financial priorilies. My right hon. Friends and I made that clear when we spoke on television and in our speeches


everywhere, not only during the election campaign but for a long time before that. I have the quotations here.
We also said that it would be necessary to deal with the economic state that we inherited. That was made clear. In the event—and I shall be coming to this later—we found that the financial problem, the balance of payments deficit, was worse than we had expected, far worse than the country had been led to believe in the repeated utterances of the then Conservative Leader, of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the present Leader of the Opposition.
We found that the power and ability of British industry to get up and expand exports and to provide competitive resistance to rapidly increasing imports of manufactured goods was far less than we could have expected, and one cannot galvanise an industrial system, build new factories, encourage investment and make innovations to the point required in a few months, and nobody ever thought that it could be done. It has been a longer and tougher job, and every day that goes past provides further evidence of the effects on Britain of, first, 12 years of drift and then one year of cynical electioneering.
I turn now to our record, and I deal first with legislation. Since November there have gone through this House, or will have, I trust, by next Thursday, 65 Bills, a pretty good record. That is two more than was achieved in the previous Session by a Government with a majority of 100, and 14 more than the average for 1951 to 1964, despite the amount of time that we spent on the Finance Bill a few weeks ago.
But there is another point to consider, and here I am dealing with the Parliamentary bottleneck and carrying out our pledges. An in-coming Government do not normally have, as a continuing Government do, a sheaf of Bills drafted and ready for introduction. However fully policies may have been prepared, it takes time to prepare instructions to Parliamentary Counsel, and still more time, in some cases many months, to get a major Bill drafted. When we came in there was not even a draft Pension Bill on the stocks. It was not there.
The comparison so far as Parliamentary preparation is concerned should be with the last change of Government, which was in 1951, when they had the same problem, and I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to see how much they got through in that year. I say nothing of the abysmal unpopularity which they faced at the end of nine months, but I ask them to consider their legislative achievements. I have checked on this. There were only two major Bills in that Session. One was a Bill to restore the rights of the brewers in the new towns, and on that I acquit right hon. Gentlemen opposite of the charge of not carrying out their pledges to those who were behind them. The other Bill was the transport denationalisation Measure which was introduced in July and did not even get a Second Reading in that first Session. We did not move any Motion condemning them for not having carried through pledges on that occasion. That is why I suggest that they are a little premature. We will have this debate year after year and they will see our progress in fulfilling our pledges becoming more and more complete.
As we heard from the right hon. Gentleman, this debate is about election pledges, and I am going to take the House through the Measures that we have carried through and the Measures that were in our election programme, and I shall come later to those which are to follow in the second and third Sessions.
The first Bill that was introduced was, I agree, a minor one, but it was very near to the heart of the Chief Whip and myself. It was only a small Bill, but it was symptomatic of what this Parliament has been about. It was a Bill to restore bus fare concessions for old-age pensioners, a concession which had been taken away by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. To some of us, where a major constituency problem was involved, this was an important Measure. I have a file knee-high of letters which I wrote to successive Tory Ministers of Transport and was turned down flat every time. Their lack of humanity on this point meant that old-age pensioners who moved out to new housing estates were unable to afford to travel, perhaps on a Sunday afternoon, to visit their relatives down town or on the other side of the city.
This is something that we were pledged to introduce. Year after year


Private Members' Bills were introduced from our side of the House, but they were blocked with unfailing regularity every Friday afternoon by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year there were exchanges across the Floor with the right hon. Gentleman, the then Prime Minister, when I was pressing him to introduce this legislation, but he refused to act. He said that he did not think that that was the right way to do it. He thought that the best way was to increase the pensions, but he did not. When we first introduced this Bill last year, the most touching thing was the warm support that it got from the Conservative Opposition, yet we know that if they had won the election this Bill would still have been blocked every Friday afternoon.
I come now to a bigger Bill. In my pre-election broadcast when I talked about priorities I mentioned pensions, and I mentioned the Rent Act. These were the two priorities. The Pensions Bill was introduced and had its First Reading 15 days after Parliament met. It provided for the biggest increase in retirement pensions, in widows' pensions, as well as in war pensions, since Labour introduced the Walfare State nearly 20 years ago. That was a pledge that we made and which we honoured, and I say without any fear of contradiction that if the Conservatives had won last October that Pensions Increase Bill would not have been introduced. If they did nothing about it before the election, one can be sure that nothing would have been done about it afterwards, and even if they had any intention of doing it they would have taken the excuse of the economic difficulties which the country was facing not to do it.
What was the Opposition's attitude when we introduced the Pensions Bill? They did not vote against it, but they did vote against the money for it. They let the Bill go through because they wanted to pose as great supporters of the old-age pensioners, but they voted against the money to pay for it because they thought that there were votes in that. They went round the by-elections seeking votes because there was a delay in paying the pensions, but this was due to the fact that there were no plans, no draft Bill, and no administrative arrangements. In one by-election they even contrasted the delay in paying pensions with Members'

pay, to which their Leader was 100 per cent. pledged, just as I was. They really plumbed the depths on that one.
Then we abolished the earnings rule for widows. They rejected this year after year. We gave a pledge to do that, and we carried it out. Prescription charges were introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in one economic crisis, in 1952, made worse and more unfair by charging separately for each prescription in the next economic crisis, in 1956, doubled in the next economic crisis in 1961 following their old rule, "When in difficulties put the burden on the backs of those least able to bear them", but it was noticeable that when the economy improved, as it usually did before a General Election, and there were vast tax handouts, there was no remission of this burden. We were pledged to remove prescription charges. We honoured that pledge. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not oppose this, although ever since they have called it wasteful. I do not know how many times they have re-spent the saving that they say would have been made if they had opposed the Bill which they did not oppose.
Then there was the Rent Act. We were pledged to restore security of tenure, which, for seven years, they rejected. We did this as an emergency Measure in our first month. When we introduced it they agreed with it. They should have had the courage of their convictions. Where was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Having agreed to it, they kept the House up all night fighting some of the essential parts of it—willing to wound but afraid to strike.
When the Rent Bill was published, terrific attacks were made on it at the Conservative Party mid-term conference, or whatever they have in March on Friday afternoons. They promised to attack it, but in the House, having made their electoral calculations, they let it through. But having let it through they attacked it day after day in Committee, and by day and by night on Report, with all the enthusiasm and unity that they show when the interests of landlords and property owners are at stake.
I want to put a question to the new Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition did not oppose the Rent Bill on its Second and Third Readings—a Bill


which was to repeal various Clauses of the Rent Act, to provide fair rents and to fight Rachmanism; a Measure which they have failed to introduce. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, on Monday, if not now, will tell us where his party stands on the Rent Bill. Will they give an assurance that if, by any mischance, they ever get back to power they will not restore their Rent Act? I believe that in the light of their behaviour over the last seven years the country has a right to know. For seven years they kept it and opposed every attack we made on it. Then they acquiesced in its repeal. Will they now repudiate it? I tell the right hon. Gentleman at the start of his new career that he will get no respite until he answers that question.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister claiming this as one of the 65 Bills which have been passed into law in this Session? If so, what steps is he going to take to remove the Amendments made to the Bill in another place before we rise next week?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure at this stage whether I can take official cognisance of what the hon. Member says. If he is right and there were two Government defeats on this subject and those Amendments were designed to emasculate the Bill—and I can only guess that they came principally from the Conservatives in another place—all I can say is that we do not intend the Bill to be emasculated by the Conservatives, either in this House or in another place.
I now turn to the Finance Bill—the greatest Measure of modernisation of our tax structure for 50 years. The Leader of the Opposition distinguished himself with a sustained attack on the Bill for 23 days; perhaps his motives were not exclusively fiscal in character, but they seem to have paid off. The Bill involved the fulfilment of pledges. We were pledged to tax capital gains. We honoured that pledge; the Opposition opposed it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he will repeal the Capital Gains Tax if he ever gets into office.
Then there was the Corporation Tax. We said that we would bring it in. Would the Opposition repeal it? I am aware of

the form of words that the right hon. Gentleman used at the end of the Committee stage, but let him come clean. Would the Opposition repeal the Corporation Tax? Do they feel so strongly about it? Do they feel that it is harmful, or that its operation bears no relation to the fiscal structure?
I now come to the Redundancy Payments Bill. We made a pledge in regard to this, and we have honoured it. We made a pledge concerning the Trade Disputes Bill, and we have honoured it. On the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, I remember putting our pledge forward in what I thought was, for me, a powerful speech—I do not make many—in the North of Scotland. It was so powerful that four Conservatives lost their seats and were replaced by Liberals. Although they have not universally shown gratitude for what I did for them, I must say that they joined with the Government on the Highlands and Islands Development Bill.
Where do the Conservatives stand on that Measure. Would the former Secretary of State for Scotland attack it? To some hon. Members opposite this was a Marxist Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was going on with his opposition until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland told him that if he would move an Amendment to take his own constituency out of it my right hon. Friend would consider it. We had no more opposition after that.
Then there was the Monopolies Bill. Over a period of 13 years, until their last-minute conversion, the Conservatives weakened the attack on monopolies. They markedly weakened the powers of the Monopolies Commission. They made resale price maintenance a lot easier, for a long time. It was only last year that they started to move on this. However, we had the support of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in carrying through the Bill. I hope that they will carry on as they have begun in that respect.
I now turn to non-legislative proposals. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport removed the ideological restrictions which right hon. Gentlemen opposite placed on the right of the railway workshops and other industrial undertakings associated with publicly-owned industry to undertake certain


work. This was another pledge that we had given, and which we carried out in a few weeks. The Opposition did not oppose it. Why not? There was also the decision of my right hon. Friend to remove the limitations on the right of the Transport Holding Company to allow British Road Services to expand.
These were pledges that we made, and these were pledges that we carried out in the first few months of office. This Session's record is one of which any Government could be proud. Of all the Measures that I have mentioned—with the possible exception of the Monopolies Bill—there is hardly one that the party opposite would have introduced if it had won the election. The list of Bills which have been passed would have been longer if it had not been for the activities of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the cub tycoons with whom he surrounded himself in opposing the Finance Bill, although he knows that it was a necessary Bill and a right one.
I now turn to Measures that we were pledged to introduce but have not introduced so far. First, there is the Bill to set up a Land Commission. I am touched by the impatience which hon. Members opposite keep showing about this. I wonder why they are so impatient. Is it because they at last realise the magnitude of the problem of land profiteering, which they did not previously recognise, and the cost it involves to local authorities and owner-occupiers? Do they now realise the impossibility of planning if it is impossible to obtain the land that is needed at a reasonable price? Do they now know that they were wrong to resist these proposals? Is that why they want to see the Bill?
Let me put them out of their misery. They will have the White Paper on land and the Land Commission in a few weeks' time, and the Bill will be introduced when Parliament returns. Then they will have to tell us where they stand on this Bill. They will have to say whether they support the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who believes in a free market, and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who went further a year ago and said that he believed unequivocally in a free market in land—or whether they agree with the right hon. Member

for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who wants a levy on land sales. They will have to sort it out between themselves. They will have the help of our White Paper in this process. Perhaps they will support the public ownership of land. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt tell us about this, because he now leads a party that is split on nearly everything. We have some hopes of an improvement, because we have been told that for nine months he has been busy beavering away on these anonymous policy committees, and that in January he was commuting to "The Hirsel". He told us that there was going to be a March election and that his election manifesto was ready. We would like to see it. We were told that it was to be ready in March, and then in the summer. I think that summer is a little late this year in more ways than one. Some day, no doubt, he will tell us where he stands on these issues. Up until now, we have not had a shred of new policy.
We said that we would give housing priority and would increase the number of houses built to let, and this we are doing. The housing programme is up this year. It will be held next year on an even keel of equality with this year, and then it will be increased year by year. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until the publication of the national housing plan, in association with the general economic plan in September. It will provide for an increase in housing to figures far beyond anything the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, even after 13 years in office.
I tell the House frankly that, quite apart from other economic reasons for Tuesday's measures, it would be impossible to sustain a rising priority housing programme, indeed, to maintain the present level of house building, unless we held back the proliferation of competing building contracts which right hon. Gentlemen were so busy scattering as election bribes. The House knows that all over the country building work is held up by shortage of labour and shortage of materials. They announced an election target for housing which was no more than a paper target and forgot to plan the materials. Now we have to import the materials that we need, swelling our import bill.
We will not get the housing target unless less essential building is held back as we are doing. We pledged ourselves to hold back office building in the interests of housing, and we have done it in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill. The licensing procedure on less essential building that was announced on Tuesday is essential if we are going to get our priority programmes on houses, schools, hospitals and factories. The licensing procedure does not apply to industry or to blocks of flats or anything to do with housing.
For years, the right hon. Gentlemen held back housing and hospitals. I have been comparing their manifestoes. In 1959, they claimed that they built 12 hospitals; in 1964, that they built five. No other Government have built minus seven hospitals. What they did was to give the go-ahead to petrol stations, to gambling establishments, and to bowling alleys. All of those may be highly estimable things; it is not for me to assess their moral value or the pleasure that they give. But if we are to get houses built, we have got to have priorities, and I hope that we shall have their support. Will they show more concern about houses, or development profits?

Mr. Barber: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not parting completely with hospitals. I hope he will tell us why these 20 major projects which I approved have been deferred?

The Prime Minister: I was coming to hospitals, because I have been into the subject with my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman produced some wonderful paper plans, and it was already clear before he went out of office that his own programme was in utter chaos. The monetary provision that had been made fell far short of the number of hospitals that he said he could build. The first job that my right hon. Friend has had has been to put that hospital plan in order. It was a purely election, paper plan, which bore no relation to real building, or anything of that kind. It was just chaotic. It has been put in order, it has been costed, and in real terms expanded, and it will still go ahead within agreed limits.
On education—

Mr. Donald Box: What about leaseholds?

The Prime Minister: I answered a Question on this subject from the hon. Gentleman last week. At least, I thought that it was he who had put one. If he did not, he had better read the answer, anyway. I also dealt with it at a meeting in Wales the other day, because we thought it was a very important subject in Wales. We made pledges about it, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is working on a Bill, which will be introduced next Session. After all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the subject I hope that he will vote for the Bill when it comes.
Since my right hon. Friend hopes to catch the eye of the Chair this evening, I will leave education to him.
Oh, yes; there is the question of the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Bill is about ready, and the House can have it in a few weeks.
We made a lot of promises about agriculture. There will be White Papers next week, dealing with the fulfilment of our pledges on the Meat and Livestock Commission, on agricultural development, including co-operation, the improvement of farm structure in terms of voluntary mergers, and hills and uplands.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: What about the pricing scheme for white fish?

The Prime Minister: I must say, the Press will have fun with this. After all we have heard about the great, rasping attack that we were to get from the hon. Gentlemen opposite—three days of attack that we should not have had if it were not for the new Sir Galahad who was leading them—the whole censure Motion has come down to a plaintive cry about white fish.
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it has not been overlooked. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were, because I saw them at it, hard at work on it only last night. May I say, as one who once spent the hardest four years of his life on a Ministry White Fish Committee just after the war, I know the importance of


the subject. I would like to say, "Thank God I am not on the Committee now".
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of living and to rates. The cost of living was debated yesterday. I will just refer to two examples. One was postal charges, which came up at Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman knew—he did not mention them, but they are part of the cost of living—that there was a deficit of over £100 million last year. I hope that he will not deny that that was known to the Government at that time. If they did know, why did they not tell the country? They suppressed the information. They knew that postal charges would have to go up. Is that not right?

Mr. Barber: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to reply to the debate.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) knows that if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way he cannot intervene.

The Prime Minister: I am replying to the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale.
The cost of living was the subject of a censure Motion yesterday. This point about postal charges was mentioned. The right hon. Member mentioned cost of living. I want to know if, even after yesterday, we can be told whether the Opposition knew that there was a deficit of £100 million and that postal charges would have to go up. As a member of the Cabinet, did the right hon. Member know or did he not?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was not in the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was. If he did know this, will he tell us why his Government dodged telling the country?

Mr. Robert Cooke: The facts are wrong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member for Bristol, West to behave himself.

The Prime Minister: Why, knowing this, did hon. and right hon. Members opposite put down a Motion of censure on postal charges when they knew that this was done to deal with a deficit which they had known about and suppressed when they left office? The same is true about B.B.C. licence fees. The right hon. Member knew perfectly well that the B.B.C. was moving into deficit and there would have to be an increase in licence fees, but they postponed it until after the election.
We come now to rates. The Opposition have been running a campaign about rising rates, but they know that almost every increase in this year's rates was incurred when they were in office. The first thing necessary is to get some discipline into local expenditure which has rocketed in this period. Some of it is essential, like education, housing and so on, but the system of financial control in the last 18 months of Conservative Government broke down. Loan sanction machinery was not being effectively used. While I do not say that much local authority expenditure is unnecessary or wasteful, I think that much of it which hon. Members opposite encouraged on the eve of the election, having held it back for 12 years, is not immediately essential. We would all like to have new town halls; I should like one in my constituency, but it can wait, and in the present situation it is probably right that it should wait. By holding back local expenditure of this kind we are limiting the rate burden.
The right hon. Member referred to the need—and it is a fundamental need—for an inquiry. We promised this inquiry, and it is proceeding. When it is complete we shall announce the conclusions and take whatever policy decisions are necessary and tell the House about them. I think the whole House agrees about the deficiencies of the rating system, and inequity and unfairness between householder and householder and its regressive character. The one thing which hon. Members opposite did about it was to produce a factual report


showing that the system is of a regressive character. We are putting a thoroughgoing inquiry in hand.
The questions of mortgage charges, an incomes guarantee and National Health charges I shall come to in the light of the economic situation, to which I now turn.

Sir Cyril Osborne: rose—

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I have given way about six times. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I know that he has a big speech to make.
Even on these three matters, mortgage charges, income guarantee and National Health charges, it is hypocritical for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to raise objection, because they did not take any steps about mortgage charges, about an income guarantee, or abolishing National Health charges. Their concern is rather like that of a crocodile and would not appear to be particularly serious.
I have outlined our highly advanced plans for practically the whole of the remaining parts of our election pledges, and I have made clear that practically the whole of them are going forward in one way or another. All this has to proceed against the background of the economic situation which we inherited. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very sensitive about this, but there are two facts that they cannot wriggle out of. One is the size of the balance of payments deficit which we faced on coming into office, £800 million. In fact, in their last three months of office it was at a rate of over £1,000 million, the worst since the war. Far from telling the people what we were up against and producing adequate policies to deal with the situation and acting on them in time, the previous Government deliberately misled the British people for electoral purposes and deferred action which they knew to be necessary because they preferred to get votes rather than improving Britain's viability.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: As the right hon. Gentleman has repeated the statement, will he recall that the latest figures on balance of payments

were published without emendation in the middle of the election campaign?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and in the middle of the night. In fact, what they showed was a deficit in the first half of the year of £350 million, and the right hon. Member knows that in the third quarter it was £251 million.

Mr. Maudling: A seasonal quarter.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member knows that it is seasonal on the reserves, but this was not a seasonal increase at all. He knows that perfectly well. Also—and here I hope that I carry the right hon. Member with me; I like doing that because I like him—they postponed the election to the last few humiliating minutes. He was against postponement because he knew what was coming. All credit to him. He was angry about postponement of the election because an early election would alone enable necessary action to be taken. These are the facts, and the responsibility lies on the shoulders of right hon. Members opposite.
They knew the facts and they knew what had to be done. They were preparing emergency action. When we took emergency action the right hon. Member said—and said rightly—that the action and surcharges were his remedy. It has been typical of the conduct of the Opposition that when he made the statement, which was a truthful statement, as I know, the now Leader of the Opposition insisted on contradicting his right hon. Friend. That is why he is where he is. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) played it clean.
Since there will be a chance on Monday of dealing with some of these questions and the right hon. Member for Bexley has had to leave—he explained why he had to go—there are various things I want to say about him in his presence rather than in his absence, so I shall wait until Monday before saying them.
I come now to the action of hon. and right hon. Members opposite on measures which we have taken to deal with the economic situation at this time.

Mr. Barber: Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain the passage in the election manifesto about the income


guarantee scheme not being dependent on the progress of the economy—

The Prime Minister: Yes, I said I would do that—

Mr. Barber: Secondly, will he explain the reasons, as this will help us in the debate on Monday, why 14 days ago the Chancellor said that such measures as he announced on Tuesday last were not necessary?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Member did not waste so much time, I should have come to this earlier. I am not going to let him off the hook regarding a rather important question about the economy. I am a little tired of the childish argument about the £800 million deficit, that what we did was to talk about it and suddenly tell the country the facts about it. This is below the level expected of right hon. Members opposite.
On every point when we have tried to put it right we had opposition from them. They opposed two Budgets which were designed to disinflate. They go around the country promising reduced Government expenditure and reduced taxation and oppose every step we have taken to reduce expenditure. They move Motion of censure after Motion of censure. We had two on aircraft cancellations. Here, I correct what I said to the Leader of the Liberal Party. It was on one and not on two occasions when the Liberals were on the wrong side.
We have had censure Motions on the Price Review, on postal charges and mortgages—six of them—and in every case they have advocated increases in national expenditure demonstrating that the so-called alternative Government are at least as irresponsible in Opposition as they were in Government and are prepared to sacrifice our national viability and the strength of sterling to the search for votes by courting the pressure groups. I will concede them this one virtue of consistency. They are at least as irresponsible in opposition as they were in Government.
I turn for a moment to the most recent developments and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must put this in the setting of the basic facts I have just given of the balance of payments deficit and of the second problem of industrial bottlenecks, particularly in the building field,

because all of us know now that many building contractors are no longer having to pinch labour from one another. They are having to pinch it from themselves, because they are over-deployed, because there are too many building contracts. The same is true of a number of factories.
Therefore, it is essential, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to reduce, to cut back, this expenditure on grounds of physical resources and on grounds of financial resources if we are to get any discipline in public expenditure. Last year we inherited a very big spending programme, but I think that the part of of it which has got more out of hand than any other is local authority expenditure. This is why so large a part of the measures of my right hon. Friend relate to the need for controls in the field of Government expenditure.
The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale has just asked—why this urgency; why did we act this week after the statement of my right hon. Friend a short while ago? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. Since January the Government have been conducting a most stringent review of expenditure to keep the Estimates year by year within the 4¼ per cent. rate of increase. This review is now complete, and it was right to announce its implications to the House as soon as we completed it. We could have waited until the House rose. That was the favourite trick of right hon. Members opposite. I think that we should have been criticised if we had, and I think rightly criticised.
There were two other reasons. The most recent estimates showed some doubt about reaching a balance in the second half of next year owing to the trends in exports. We attach the highest importance, not nearly to achieving balance in the second half of next year, or achieving it a few months late, but to achieving it on time. Therefore, we decided that it was right to reinforce the measures previously taken, because of the estimates we got. When we got the estimates we acted on them. Equally, it was necessary, if the housing programme was to go on, for us to cut back on competition with it.
Thirdly—I say this very seriously to the right hon. Gentleman—it was vital to reassure the world trading community and


the holders of sterling balances, of our utter determination to make Britain strong and sterling strong. For some months we have felt the effects of the American measures—the recall of profits and the reduction in working capital by subsidiaries in this country. We have also felt the side effects of the American squeeze on Euro-dollars, which has led countries desperately short of dollars to convert marginal sterling holdings into dollars, just as our reserves were hit recently by the effect of Japan's grave dollar shortage on her purchases from Australia. Then last week came the impact of the Chinese gold buying spree.
For all these reasons, we decided to act, and to act now. I hope that, having acted, no one at home or abroad is in any doubt now about our determination. What I would stress is the relevance of our actions. The two Budgets were relevant to the need to keep total spending power within bounds and to make our financial system more just and equitable. The Finance Bill was relevant to the need to plough back funds and marginally to restrain overseas lending in favour of investment in British modernisation. Relevant, too, is the restriction on bank advances, with its selective impact on imports, and our new measures for stopping prepayment on imports. Relevant, again, are the measures taken in the Budget and again last Tuesday to operate on the overseas capital account.
Right hon. Members opposite always tried to improve the balance by a crude restriction—not a selective one—of home demand, hoping that under-employed factories would buy less materials and under-employed workers less consumer goods imports. This worked for a time in keeping the balances, but only at the cost of stagnation, at the cost of deterrents to investment, deterrents to modernisation, and encouragement to restrictive practices. Then, as unemployment increased and as elections drew near, we had every four years panic spending measures leading to a fresh crisis, as the O.E.C.D. commented in its somewhat harsh criticisms of the recent increase in spending.
It is because we insist on full employment that we have exempted development districts and areas of high unemployment.

Full employment will be viable only on condition of substantial redeployment—at a high rate, because it was not done before. This emphasises the relevance of our concentration on redundancy payments, industrial training and retraining, as well as our decision to give priority to wage-related unemployment and sickness benefits over the income guarantee.
To secure viability means sacrifies. We have never failed to make this clear. We said it before the election, and we have said it since. Nor are we afraid to sacrifice by deferring, as we have done, cherished and important political programmes, including mortgages, which will be deferred to 1967, and the income guarantee similarly. We said that we would follow priorities. We said that we would put the strength of the economy and sterling first. We said it in the election. We said it in the Gracious Speech.
On the specific point of the right hon. Gentleman about our deferment of the income guarantee, I will simply say this. We had hoped on coming in that it would be possible, dependent on the administrative machinery we found, to introduce the income guarantee very quickly indeed, because we all felt that this would be a way of increasing pensions without the full cost of a general pensions increase, and we would be able to concentrate on greatest need. The administrative machinery was nothing like sufficient to do this. What we did—this is where I claim that we have fully honoured the passage that the right hon. Gentleman read out—was to carry through immediately as our first priority the biggest pensions increase for 20 years. That was the way in which we honoured it.
We have deferred these two projects. I make no bones about it. The exercise of priorities—this is what government is about. This is what politics is about. It involves hard and painful decisions. We have taken them, but we utterly reject the suggestion that by postponing into the third Session of Parliament two items out of 70 in a five-year election programme we have defaulted or shall default on our pledges. Least of all, shall we take this kind of thing from right hon. Members opposite, who have consistently opposed each of the measures which have been deferred.
With this I close. As our Amendment makes plain, this doctrine of electoral pledges which we assert and shall honour comes very strangely from right hon. Members opposite. I remember three pledges in 1961—first, "Mend the hole in the purse". We had a 51 per cent. increase in the cost of living when in terms of trade import prices improved by 29 per cent. Right hon. Members opposite in three years out of every four tried to hold wages down and blackguarded trade union leaders who put them up, whilst in the fourth year they claimed credit for the increases which had been gained. Secondly, they pledged themselves to reduce Government expenditure by £700 million. That was one of the pledges of 1951. In fact, it increased by £4,050 million. I admit that their third pledge, to reopen the Liverpool Cotton Market, was carried out. It did not do any good. It was a dead letter from the start.
In 1955, they promised us a Summit, which failed. They promised us full support for the United Nations. We had Suez. They promised us an expanding economy and reduced taxation. We had the autumn Budget of that year.
In 1959, they promised us another Summit, the Summit which never was. They promised to improve Commonwealth trade, but it fell by nearly one-quarter. They gave the figures I quoted at Question Time and said that, having for the first time in history for 100 years achieved a surplus in our trade with the United States of £13 million, they would build on this. The building was successful to the tune that the deficit last year was £257 million, a worsening of £270 million altogether. If it had not been for that, we should have had a much more manageable balance of payments deficit last year. If they had carried out that pledge, we should have had almost no deficit at all in 1965. I will say nothing now about the 1964 General Election and the pledges they then gave.
The Conservative doctrine on election pledges—this is what this debate is about—was set out for all time by their then leader in 1951:
I do not admit as democratic constitutional doctrine that anything that is stuck into a party manifesto thereupon becomes a mandated right if the electors vote for the party who drew up the manifesto. We are all allowed

to have our opinions about constitutional matters. If that principle is accepted, why not shove a dozen more items in? One can always leave them out if there is not time, or circumstances change. But is it not for our convenience to have a lot to play with, and surely it costs nothing to a party seeking a change or a new deal?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1748.]
That is Conservative doctrine. We have had 13 years in which full acceptance of it was put into practice.
For our part, this is our manifesto, and we shall honour it.

Hon. Members: Divide.

5.52 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: It is very seldom that I have the honour to speak so early in a debate, especially after—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady wait just a moment? If hon. Members wish to leave the Chamber, will they do so quietly?

Dame Joan Vickers: It is very seldom that I have the honour to be called so early in a debate, especially after such a distinguished speaker to whom we have listened today. The Prime Minister modestly admitted that his speech in Scotland did not persuade people to vote for his party. I am certain that his speech in the House today will not convince people in the country to vote for his party at the next election. Yesterday, in the Evening Standard, there was the report of several interviews with people who were asked about the future leadership of the Conservative Party. A window cleaner who was interviewed admitted that he voted Socialist last time, but, when he was asked for whom he would vote at the next election, he predicted that the Tories would win and said: "There is nothing but gloom since the Labour Party got into power. At the local level I am not satisfied with them either. I reckon that, with Heath against them, they will get knocked out next time. That is definite." He may or may not be definitely right about that, but one thing is definite: there has been nothing but gloom since the Labour Party was returned to power.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: On the hon. Lady's side.

Dame Joan Vickers: Certainly not. We have stuck it very well and kept hon.


and right hon. Members up to their job whenever necessary.
The Prime Minister accused us of being partisan in our attitude to various groups. In my view, we have the right to protect those who need protection. It was rather strange to hear the Prime Minister say that, especially as he went on to say that he had been kneedeep in the difficulties of old-age pensioners and bus fares. He admitted that he was partisan towards one section of the population. That is how he acts in his own constituency, and he has no right to accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) of being partisan in regard to particular sections of the population who need our protection.
It is not my intention to discuss what was said in the Labour Party manifesto. I wish, first, to refute the charge that we have not been a constructive Opposition. The various Bills which have been before the House have been studied more deeply than at almost any time during the years that I have been in the House, and it is interesting to find the number of Amendments which have been accepted. For example, the Race Relations Bill left the House after Second Reading as one Bill and came back as quite another. I am certain that this was because of the reasoned Amendments put forward by the Opposition. I could take many other Bills, such as the Rent and Finance Bills, in regard to which the Opposition have been extremely constructive. In any case, it is not for an Opposition to put forward policies. Their turn will come at the next election. We have to put forward constructive proposals and Amendments to the Measures which the Government in power put before the House.
I come now to a subject which has not been referred to today, that is, defence. On 27th September, 1964, the Prime Minister came to my constituency and made a speech which was probably part of the reason for my reduced majority. He said:
It is not possible to come to Plymouth without saying something about naval affairs, about the dockyards and about the Royal Navy".
As Plymouth, for the past 300 years, has depended on and done an excellent job

for the Royal Navy, one can well imagine that that sort of remark would be welcomed with a "Hear, hear". There are 14,000 people who work in the yard. No doubt, to get their interest and, perhaps, their votes, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
We believe that in the present conditions"—
to my mind, conditions are worse now than they were at that time—
we need a stronger and more effective Navy".
I am sure that people again said "Hear, hear" to that, but he continued:
The Royal Navy is not adequate for our needs in the 1960s. It has been run down to a dangerous extent by the Conservatives in their pursuit of nuclear illusion for political and prestige purposes".
When the Navy Estimates came along, I listened with great interest to know what changes to improve our great Navy would be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. What did we hear? First, the fifth Polaris submarine is not to be built. The Hunter class submarines are being delayed. There is no question of the carrier being produced for a number of years, if at all. We were told that there would be four extra County class cruisers and 12 Leander class frigates. This was the major programme filling in the necessary details of the changes foreshadowed by the Prime Minister to give the country a stronger Navy.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—it seemed to me to prove that he really considered that we did not need this very much stronger Navy—how adequately the Royal Navy had played its part in the past year, for instance, in Kuwait, Brunei, Tanzania, Malaysia and Cyprus. In fact, the Royal Navy never failed.
Another of his statements interested his audience very much. He said:
We have to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement.
As far as I know, no action has been taken about that, and I hope that whoever is to reply at the end of the debate will tell us what has happened about the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Redeployment in our defence expenditure as promised in our manifesto will help to provide the resources needed to stimulate regular recruitment.


This is a very big problem. What has happened? The hon. Gentleman went on to say in the same speech:
It is not only rates of pay—it is just as much a question of accommodation and married quarters, which have suffered severely defence cuts dictated by the missile Polaris programme.
We on this side of the House have asked several times about the scheme for ratings to be able to have loans to buy their houses on re-engagement. All that we have had from the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy is a promise that he may make a statement before the end of the Session. As there is to be a cut of £100 million in defence expenditure, I want to know whether this will involve withdrawing the promises which were definitely given to the ratings that there would be a scheme for them, if they re-engaged, to get some loans for their houses, because the situation with regard to married quarters and other accommodation, as I know only too well from my interview session, is extremely difficult at the present time.
Furthermore, on 11 th March the Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy said:
We are looking forward keenly to flying Phantoms from our carriers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 659.]
If we are looking forward keenly to flying Phantoms from our carriers, I should like to hear when we shall be able to know something about the new carrier. At the moment we have only H.M.S. "Eagle", a modern carrier, and the "Hermes", which will not be ready for approximately another two years, and the older carriers which will soon be at the end of their service. How can we look forward eagerly to flying Phantoms from our carriers if we have not got the carriers, or, as far as I know, the Phantoms either at the moment?
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I believe, and state with all the sincerity at my command that I believe, that our reappraisal of defence policies, with our emphasis on the rôle of the Navy's regular job, will provide better security, better assurances for the future than the vacillations of Tory defence policy.
I would beg to differ with the Prime Minister over that last remark. There have been more vacillations by the present Government in a shorter time than ever in the history of our country in

regard to our policy for defence. We cannot have an answer today, but I hope that on Monday we shall have a very definite statement as to what is meant by all these points which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in my constituency. He continued:
I … state with all the sincerity at my command",
and this is a very important question affecting not only my constituency but the whole of the Royal Navy and its future recruitment, and many other dockyard towns as well. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in wanting a stronger Navy, he will have to get the recruits to man the ships. I want to know what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman is breaking his personal pledges. I agree that they were made to persons in a particular area, to my constituents, but, of course, this kind of statement gets round—I am sure that it was meant to get round—to all the other dockyard towns.
The right hon. Gentleman also said in that speech:
Another issue—we believe in fair wages and fair conditions.
I suggest that this hardly appears to be the case. For some time I have been trying to get action taken on behalf of certain sections of people who, I think, are being treated most unfairly, and I keep on being pushed off all the time. I want particularly to mention the apprentice group instructors. They have been asking for non-industrial status. It seems ridiculous that in the dockyards they have industrial status but if they do exactly the same job in H.M.S. "Fishgard" they have non-industrial status. I do not consider that this represents fair conditions.
I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy stating that the Department had not heard from the Amalgamated Engineering Union on this subject for many years. I can understand that. The Amalgamated Engineering Union knows that if those concerned are given the fair conditions promised by the right hon. Gentleman it will lose some members. We are told that the Civil Service Staff Association would support the promotion of these people to non-industrial status. We then get a further difficulty, because


we are told that this Civil Service union is not a negotiating body for the conditions of these men and has nothing to do with the conditions under which they work. Therefore, how can it ever hope to get fair conditions for that area? I should have thought that this point could have been tacked by now.
I gather that while discussions were in progress between the trade union side and the Treasury—I have this information in a letter which I received on 9th July, 1965—the Chancellor accepted the proposal of the trade union side to stand still on future negotiation. Does this represent fair conditions? Surely it is for him to make up his mind about what status these men should have. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy should be able to do his own thinking and not solely be dependent on the trade unions for advice in this respect.
I had a further letter on the subject of fair conditions for surgery assistants, who wish to be non-industrial. I mention this particularly because I received a reply saying:
I am not surprised to learn that the Transport and General Workers' Union is not taking up their case since the trade union side of the Council have agreed with the Chancellor that a moratorium should be placed on all further non-industrialisation pending negotiations.
Why should a moratorium be placed on these individuals? Is it purely to save money? If their status were raised, they would get better pay and better pensions. I want to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman carries out his pledge to the people in the Royal Navy and the dockyards that they shall get fair wages and fair conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, with a sentence which I think needs a great deal of explanation if we are to know what the future of the Service is to be:
But there is one thing I want to add—the greater use of Royal Dockyards as well as Royal Ordnance Factories for civil work.
Nobody, I am sure, would quarrel with that. At present there is, I believe, sufficient work for the Royal Navy. But it makes us very doubful about Socialist pledges when one looks at what has happened in other quarters.
The Minister for Defence for the Royal Navy is one of the Parliamentary representatives of Woolwich, and in his election address he said:
There is the problem of the Arsenal. For years I have fought hard in Parliament and elsewhere to keep the R.O.F. alive and flourishing. Now the Government"—
that is, the Conservative Government—
has finally decided to close it down. I have however—
This was in his election address—
received the assurance of Mr. Harold Wilson that a Labour Government would carefully review the decision. If re-elected I would immediately draw this question to the attention of the relevant Labour Ministers.
I should like to know who in this case are the relevant Labour Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman is himself now a Minister, why has he not been able to take any action?
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) also had in his election address a passage about the closing down of the R.O.F. at Woolwich Arsenal:
… a typical piece of Conservatism. Contracts go to private interests first. The public interest and the taxpayer's pocket come second.
On 21st December, 1964, the "Go-Ahead signal was given for the Royal Arsenal to be gradually shut down. There was to be no civilian work. In the Daily Telegraph of 22nd December, 1964, one of the shop stewards said:
We are more disgusted than words can express The Labour Party slammed the Conservatives for announcing last year only two weeks before Christmas that the Arsenal was to be run down. Now the Labour Government announces this four days before Christmas. What are we to say?
Knowing dockyard language, it was obvious what he might have said. However, I am sure that, on this occasion, words failed him. Words will fail us if similar action is taken in the rest of the naval establishments. I therefore seek a full assurance that the pledge given in the speech by the right hon. Gentleman will be carried out—civilian work being provided if necessary—because it is essential to the whole area that we should know what is to happen in regard to future employment. The dockyard towns are concerned because of the announcement of the £100 million cut likely to take place in the near future.
The final sentence from the right hon. Gentleman's speech made one wonder


what is going on with regard to planning for the future. He said:
I believe there will come a time when Plymouth's dependence on the Admiralty side of the Ministry of Defence will be matched by growing interest in the work of the new Ministry of Overseas Development.
It will he interesting, and it is rather worrying, to know what is meant by that sentence. Perhaps we can be told.
I only mention this one point because it has not been mentioned before and it is essential to thousands of people throughout the country that they should not be deceived, as they were deceived in the last election, into voting for a Government that promises them a better Navy and even more security in future. It is on this point that I hope the Government will keep their pledges.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will forgive me if I do not follow her since she raised the question of Plymouth and I know very little of the town except about its football team. Nor am I am expert on instructors and apprenticeships questions.
Every Labour M.P. felt grave disappointment when hearing the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. When he announced his "squeeze", let us admit that it was a serious disappointment to us, in particular the postponement from next year to the following year of three dearly held reforms—not-ably, the minimum income guarantee, the cheap mortgage rates for those wishing to buy their own houses and the removal of the charges on teeth, spectacles and other appliances.
The question is: why is the squeeze taking place? The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is due to the deficit that the Government inherited of £800 million on the balance of payments and the consequent lack of confidence among foreign bankers in the E. The point I wish to make is that, even so, there is a way of restoring our country to international solvency. There is one sphere, and only one sphere, where the Government can cut without hurting the ordinary people—and that is in the field of arms expenditure.
When the Chancellor spoke on Tuesday of a £400 million a year cut in arms expenditure by 1969–70, many hon. Members and people outside the House believed that this really did mean a cut of £400 million a year. In other words, they believed that the fantastic burden of £2,100 million a year would be reduced to £1,700 million a year. Today, however, the Prime Minister has confirmed that it means nothing of the sort. All it means is that, by 1969–70, we will be spending £400 million a year less than we would have been spending if the arms programme had continued to expand unchecked at the rate which had been projected by the Conservative Government.
I do not want to be disrespectful to my Irish friends, but we all know what an "Irishman's rise" is. To be honest, this is an "Irishman's cut", because it is not a cut at all.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Allaun: I gather that there is a counter-attraction in another place not unconnected with the 1922 Committee, but one would think that, in a debate on a Motion of censure, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would have been in the Chamber.
The point I was making is that what looks like being to many of us a cut in arms expenditure is not a cut and that, just as we have heard of an "Irishman's rise"—when he expects his wage to go up but it comes down instead—the reverse is actually happening and we are having an "Irishman's cut".
I am certain of that because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has confirmed it. I am not so certain about the next point, but I fear that I am also right in saying that the £100 million a year reduction in arms expenditure by next year, which was also mentioned in the Chancellor's statement and to which the hon. Lady referred, is a similar kind of cut. In other words, I believe that arms expenditure far from going down will, in terms of £ s. d., go up.
I ask why military expenditure alone should be sacrosanct, untouchable and


have top priority. Whilst I strongly disagree with the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), I believe that in this matter the Government are not doing enough. It is not good enough merely to knock £400 million off what might have been expenditure when one intends to increase the actual financial burden. Some hon. Members on this side are entitled to make this criticism. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not entitled to do so because they were responsible for this wild, military dream of uncontrolled arms expenditure which would have gone far higher still if it had not been contained to a certain extent. Secondly, they are not entitled to criticise because they opposed the cutting of the TSR2, which would have cost £700 million. They are, therefore, not in a very good position to criticize, but, repeat, some of us on the Labour benches are.
If there has been a delay in honouring some of our pledges—and we have to admit that there has been—it is due to this cause. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House feel very strongly about the size of the arms programme and I am sure that they are right. In politics, the way to success is to seek for the master key which will unlock not only one door but all doors. It is quite clear that the master key in the present situation, the key to the problems facing the British people and the Labour Government, is a drastic cut in arms expenditure. If the Government turn this key, they can carry out all their pledges with little further delay. I believe that they intend to carry out their pledges, but there is a postponement due to the international position, which, in turn, is caused by the size of the arms programme and particularly overseas arms expenditure.
If we took this road and cut arms far more drastically, the effects would be dramatic. Our problems would be greatly eased and we would be able to carry out our pledges completely, for instance, to re-equip industry, to reduce prices and to encourage the export trade. All these things could be done far more rapidly if we were not wasting our substance on the arms programme.
Overseas military expenditure is £350 million, but it involves far greater sums.

I will give two examples. East of Suez the official figure is that military expenditure is £320 million per annum, but if overhead military expenditure is included, such as headquarter costs of the Ministry of Defence and the cost of the Navy some of which is in the Far East, the total bill is nearer £500 million a year. I agree that not all of it is in currency across the exchanges, but a high proportion of it is. Similarly, in Germany we are spending £85 million a year in foreign currency in maintaining the British Army of the Rhine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), who is a member of the Estimates Committee, assures me, however, that the total cost of maintaining B.A.O.R. is not £85 million but nearly £200 million a year.
Another door which could be opened and another pledge which could be honoured more easily is marked "Pensions". One part of that pledge has been implemented by raising the basic old-age pension by 12s. 6d. a week, but we have not so far honoured the pledge on the minimum income guarantee, or graduated pensions. The way to do that is by cutting military expenditure. Similarly, by switching materials, money and manpower from war production to peaceful production, we could carry out our housing programme. I speak with great feeling on this subject, because in Salford the waiting list for council houses is 21 years and there are families who have been waiting that number of years. Unless a family is in one of the areas of the city scheduled for slum clearance—and much of the city is a slum—or practically dying of tuberculosis, it has no chance of getting a council house unless it has been on the list since 1944.
We have pledges on this. The Labour Party gave the pledges of cheap interest rates for council house building and cheap interest rates for those wishing to buy their own houses. I am still hoping desperately that the former pledge will be implemented by October, even though the latter is being postponed for another year. Otherwise, starts on council house building will be delayed.
Yet another pledge which we could honour is that of the war on want in the hungry nations. Seventy-two Labour Members last week signed a declaration


which appeared in Tribune, and I understand that there have been a number of additions since. In this declaration they stated that we should aim at a cut of £500 million a year in our arms expenditure, and by that they meant a real cut and not the Irishman's cut which I mentioned earlier. I believe that those Labour Members were firing at the right target. Most of them have held this view for a long time, but it is now becoming obvious to everyone outside a mental institution that we cannot afford to continue out arms expenditure at the present rate. No Government of any colour could carry out these pledges and maintain that kind of expenditure.
Naturally, we would prefer to see disarmament take place by agreement, but there is no need to wait for that. In 1963, Russia cut her arms programme by £240 million a year and the American Government responded with a cut of £360 million a year. Arms expenditure is being cut in Germany and a number of other countries, but in our country it is going up.
I have recently been reading the third volume of Hugh Dalton's autobiography, "High Tide and After." He describes the run of the £ in 1947. I must say that that situation was frighteningly similar to this. Whether or not one agreed with everything he said and did, Hugh Dalton was convinced that, in order to carry out the Labour programme of 1945, the payments which had to be cut, and quickly, were those for the Armed Forces, particularly those stationed overseas. He wrote to the then Mr. Attlee as follows:
We must think of our defence in these hard and heavy years of shortage not only against the more distant possibility of armed aggression but also against the far more immediate risk of economic and financial strain and collapse. What would it profit Britain if, by spending nearly £1,000 million a year on defence"—
as it then was—
it were to come an economic and financial cropper two years hence?
We do not want that part of our political history to repeat itself. What good would it do our people or the prospects of peace if we were to spend even more on arms and become a bankrupt nation in consequence?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I always listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), because I know that the views he holds are held sincerely. While I do not agree with his arguments, I do agree with the suggestion he made about the figures for the cutting down, given in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, being Irishmen's cuts.
I would go further than that and say that his right hon. Friend's speech was an Irishman's speech. When the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, at the end of the Prime Minister's speech, waved their Order Papers and cheered, I felt I was witnessing a completion of an almost impossible trick, namely, the making of a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that although I pointed to this confirmation by the Prime Minister of the lack of reduction in arms expenditure, I also said that this was a great speech. I think that he himself will admit that this was one of the most powerful speeches we have heard in this House.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It was certainly a great speech from the conjuring point of view. It was making gold out of lead, in the most literal form. When I saw this remarkable feat take place earlier this afternoon I felt that those hon. Members who were cheering the Prime Minister were either totally ignorant of the true facts or were completely bemused by the conjuring trick.
When the Labour Government took office in October we, as the Opposition, made it clear, both here and in public statements in the country, that we were prepared to give the new Government a fair run for their money. I speak as a new Member of this House, who entered it at the last election. Listening to the Labour Ministers telling us of the plans which they had for Britain, I waited eagerly to see them being carried out. In the months before the election, I listened to their ambitious programmes, which, frankly, I felt were overambitious, but as they were propounded with such conviction, I thought that they had a new way of handling the whole economic situation, so that this virtual


Utopia could come to us without delay. Feeling that there must be something in their plans I was prepared to sit back with my hon. Friends and to give the Government a fair run.
Their plans read like a catalogue for a wonderful store, when one remembers the prizes which were offered. They offered increased social services without increased taxation. This is a devastating argument, a wonderul platform for any party at a General Election. They promised a halt in the cost of living, again a most attractive suggestion to all the electors in my own constituency. More homes, cheaper mortgages, cheaper money, better schools, more schools, more universities, great technological advance, were all promised.
It was a wonderful platform. I ask the House to look at the results. This was the prospectus we were given, but it was a bogus prospectus. It was a fraud. We gave them every chance in those spacious days which now seem so long ago. They are only 10 months ago, but they seem a long time ago and one can hardly realise that today we are just reeling after the third Budget announced by the Government.
The cheap mortage policy has been completely abandoned; house building, if at best holding up, is more likely to fall below the target set; huge extra taxes have been imposed and, there is absolutely no sign at all that we have reached the end of this Via Dolorosa. It may get a great deal worse. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, East, said he saw a parallel between the situation which Hugh Dalton saw in the important book, which I also have read, and the situation we face today.
We find prices everywhere rocketing. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that the Labour Government have kept their pledges, and are satisfying the people of this country, then all I can suggest is that they are completely out of touch with their own constituents. They know in their hearts that there is something terribly wrong. They know that their promises are worthless. They will be going away over the weekend to meet their constituents. They are not relishing that, because they know they will be met by angry people who gave

them their support because they thought they could trust them. They have found that the trust they placed in their party has been utterly betrayed.
Why are they in that terrible situation? Why, as a country, are we in a terrible situation? I give the one simple answer. It is because they have a bad leader. The Prime Minister, whose political genius was so often flaunted in the months leading up to the General Election, and afterwards, has proved not to be a political genius at all, but a bad politician.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is to talk about leaders this week?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member will perhaps rue making that remark.
I say that the leader of the Government is a bad politician. He must know that in a small island with a population of 56 million, half of whom would starve to death if goods were not brought in from outside, the financial balance in the economy is bound to be extremely delicate. He must realise that the confidence of the people abroad is absolutely essential if one is to make the economy of this country operate at all, let alone be prepared to stand the strain of enormous social programmes, such as were outlined in the election campaign.
The Prime Minister must know of this, or else be a had politician. Why, if this is so, does he, having been elected to office, start upon a deliberate campaign to denigrate the position of Britain in the world? We saw, soon after the Government was elected, a document issued by them, on the economic situation as they found it. This document is available to Members in the Vote Office. It certainly points to problems which an economy such as ours is always likely to be faced with—the difficult problems of import-export balance of payments. It is because we live on an island that such problems exist.
In this document, summing up the economic situation as the Labour Government found it, there is the sentence:
We reject the stop-go policy.
Yet since the Government has been in power we have had nothing except stop.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks about denigrating Britain to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), in view of his remarks a few days ago.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he has thought ahead of me, to the next point I wish to make. It is now apparently unpatriotic to point to the mess that the Government have landed the country in. Anybody who raises his voice to say that this is the worst Government which this country has had since the war and to point to the disastrous policies which they are pursuing is immediately criticised as being extremely unpatriotic.
I for one am not prepared to be muzzled by comments of that sort. I am not prepared to stand back and watch the country bled white by a thoroughly incompetent Government led by a bad politician. We in this country are, as the Americans put it, "on the toboggan" and we are heading for a brick wall. As long as this Government remains in office, the situation will get worse. Indeed, the parallel of the hon. Member for Salford, East between now and 1947 is abundantly plain to everybody. The people are disillusioned, betrayed and fed up. Those who supported the Government realise that they made a terrible mistake.
It is not enough, after the third Budget that we have had in eight months, to blame the Tories. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so brave—and he has had many cockshies at the problems—why is he still introducing more Budgets? It is because there is a hole in the boat and it is sinking. He knows perfectly well that he will have to take tougher and tougher measures all the time. Those of us on these benches who have been pointing this road to ruin since the Government took office look back on the history of other Labour Governments and realise that they all proved dismal and costly failures; and this one is an exact copy.
The only fair course open to the Government is immediately to call a General Election.

Mr. Orme: The Conservative Party would lose it.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Conservative Party will not only not lose the next election; it will sweep home. If hon. Members opposite are so confident of victory, why do not they take this immediate opportunity to increase their majority so that they do not have to suffer humiliating defeats "arranged" by the Conservative Party? They are no longer in a position to ask their supporters to support them again. I suggest that the Government should immediately offer themselves for judgment by those whom they have betrayed.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) laid it on a bit thick. The measures which were taken earlier this week were not designed to be popular. No doubt we shall have to explain them in our constituencies when we visit them this weekend. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that here is at least one Member on this side of the House who is not afraid of visiting his constituency this weekend and who is not planning to take to the hills or to disappear until the end of the summer.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it will be an easier task for us this weekend than it was for hon. Members opposite last weekend?

Mr. Shore: I do not wish to pursue these preliminary remarks further.
I wish to come to the subject of the debate, the censure Motion, if that is what it is, which is levelled against us. I seem to remember that it deplores our failure to honour our election pledges. If the Motion is to be taken seriously, we have to subject it to a certain scrutiny and to see what it means. The first thing which, I suppose, it could mean is that we are being censured for not having carried out our manifesto in nine months. Some hon. Members opposite have almost suggested this, but I think that they can be somewhat better in their criticisms than that. I do not think that they can really mean to make such an accusation, because they know as well as we do that no Government can be seriously judged on its first nine months of office. If anyone doubts that, he should look at the legislation of the Conservative Government in 1951–52. It is


rather difficult to get a programme mounted. I think that we have achieved rather more success in our first year of office than right hon. and hon. Members did in theirs.
The 1951–52 Session was memorable. It was a most marvellous occasion for back benches. There was a great deal of time available and some very exotic Measures were passed. A hypnotism Bill, a cockfighting Bill, a cremation Bill and an intestates' estates Bill all managed to reach the Statute Book during that rather underpowered Session. I think that that deals with the accusation about our not having carried out our manifesto in nine months. We are not seriously being accused of not having carried out the whole programme in nine months.
A second accusation which might be made is that we gave the impression that we would carry out the greater part of our programme in this time. If that accusation could be made, it would obviously be damaging. But it is a very difficult accusation to sustain by anyone who bothers to read what was put in our election manifesto. The second part of it—"Planning the New Britain"—begins with the warning words:
We offer no easy solution to our national problems. Time and effort will be required before they can be mastered".
It goes on to deal with specific aspects of policy. The House is entitled to know what we said.
Take housing. Right hon. Members opposite might be interested in this passage in particular:
While we regard 400,000 houses as a reasonable target, we do not intend to have an election auction on housing figures. It is no good having paper plans for houses if—as the present Minister of Housing is now discovering—you haven't the bricks to build them. The crucial factor governing the number of new houses that we can build—and indeed the schools, hospitals, factories, offices and roads that can be completed—is the output of the construction and building supply industries.
That is hardly a rash and foolish pledge to immediate action or a commitment to programmes which could not be reasonably sustained.
No wild promises were made about education. On the contrary, we struck a rather sober note. We said: "The

modernisation of our schools system will require time, and money and manpower."
Turning to social security, our pledge on the incomes guarantee has been cited and quoted. But the Prime Minister's point is the obvious reply, that as it turned out this aspect of our social security programme proved in the short term to be administratively impossible and so we switched to the all-round flat rate increase, which was not part of our immediate programme.
The words of the social security section need to be quoted again. It is a very sober statement indeed:
… the key factor in determining the speed at which new and better levels of benefit can be introduced will be the rate at which the British economy can advance.
These are not rash words. They were put in the manifesto quite deliberately because the leaders of the Labour Party had very clear knowledge of the difficulties which lay ahead. I therefore dismiss the charge that we gave the impression that we would carry out our programme in nine months. We did nothing of the kind.
The only other charge which can be brought within the words of this censure Motion is that we will not be able to carry out our election programme during the next five years, that there is something so intrinsically difficult in either the situation which we face or the proposals which we put forward that it lies beyond the reach of this nation to achieve it within the period of a normal Parliament. This connects very strongly with the charge made by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who opened for the Opposition. He accused us of election deceit.
But if it is said that we are unable to carry through the programme that was put into the manifesto "The New Britain", it can only be because the basic assumptions on which that programme was drawn up were false. Those assumptions were mainly the figures, the facts and the projections which were made available to the nation by the then Ministers in the last Government. It was they who produced the key figures based on a 4 per cent. growth rate with all that that meant and implied in the growth of national income in the years to come.
It may be said that we were unwise to take notice of their plans, but their own


programme also was based upon—indeed, it was the central sentence in their whole election manifesto—the claim that they would achieve and that all their proposals depended upon an increase of 4 per cent. per year in the national income. If it is said that that now lies beyond our reach, a point which I do not accept, it is Ministers of the former Government who must bear the guilt and the blame just as much as we do, because if it invalidates our programme because we cannot achieve 4 per cent. growth, equally it invalidates theirs. Who was responsible for drawing up the plan? Who was responsible for the careful costing—a phrase which I seem to recall—that went on during election year?
We cannot, therefore, accept—indeed, we reject entirely—any such charge as electoral deceit on our part. If there has been electoral deceit, there is no doubt whatever that the deceit has come from the failure of those who either knew or largely suspected the truth about our economic position. They should have spoken up and told the nation with candour what lay ahead. No one can expect certainty in Ministerial forecasts about the economy over the course of a year, but we do have some idea of the way that things are going.
When I hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer being attacked and lambasted for having done his duty on three separate occasions—each time when he saw that the economy was getting out of hand he came back to the job, however unpopular, and went ahead with it; when the right hon. Gentleman who held the same great office of State only a year ago made a decision in April, 1964, which he knew, the nation knew and the world knew was wrong and then failed to correct his judgment, as events showed just how false that judgment was—I can only feel a great deal of anger that such criticisms are made against my right hon. Friend.
In this debate, we on this side are not quite certain whether we are answering serious charges. [Interruption.] Obviously, we are not. Hon. Members opposite have not considered what they want to accuse us of. As I listened to the speeches that were put from the benches opposite, I thought that we were listening to a number of hastily assembled debating points more appropriate to the

Unions of Oxford or Cambridge than to the House of Commons. It was not good enough.
We on this side feel that it is not just a question of our good name and good faith which is at stake when were are faced with accusations of this kind. The nation has a great interest in this. If we fail to produce a "New Britain," if we fail to organise and plan the modernisation of our economy and if we fail to modernise our social services, if we fail to do these things and the nation has to turn back again to the dreary policies that have been seen to fail for so many years, it would indeed be a disaster.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I cannot really say that this kind of debate is one which I specially enjoy. Since coming to this House a relatively short time ago, I have frequently greatly enjoyed the occasions when we on different sides of the House have got down to the business of trying to understand what are the different principles which we hold and what are our different methods of implementing those principles in terms of policy.
Today does not seem to me to be one of those occasions. I doubt very much whether anything that is said this day or this night will contribute greatly either to the understanding of hon. Members of each other on separate sides of the House or to our understanding of the many problems with which the country is faced and which, as we have heard, are crowding in on us. Indeed, I suspect strongly that the Motion which is before us is not designed to do that but is designed, if the speeches which we have heard thus far are any indication, to give an opportunity for the sort of marketplace oratory which at election times tends to inflame the ignorant but also to sadden the wise.
I speak from the Liberal bench representing what is certainly a minority party. To put it poetically,
My strength is as the strength of ten.
To put it more practically, my strength is as the strength of 3 million. Today's Motion has been initiated by the Conservative Opposition. If we on this bench had an opportunity on Supply Days to initiate subjects for debate, as I feel our representation in the country more


than warrants in all equity, this is certainly not the sort of subject which we would choose.
Obviously, if one is discussing election pledges, one can discuss practically anything. Election manifestos are generally fairly comprehensive. I should, however, have thought that we would better spend our day and our night in looking more closely at some of the many subjects which should engage our attention, such as, for example, transport, industrial relations, wage differentials or some of the many subjects for which the Leader of the House is pressed each Thursday to give time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Or white fish.

Mr. Johnston: I suggest that to discuss white fish in detail would certainly be more advantageous than to discuss this Motion.
However, let me none the less play the game for a short time. Let us look at the Motion as it is set out:
That this House deplores the Government's failure to honour their election pledges.
The first thing that I would do in looking at a subject of that sort is to ask what are the credentials of the proposer. That is an obvious thing to ask, because if one deplores something one generally ought to be entitled to deplore something. Drunkards do not generally deplore other drunkards. Thieves do not generally deplore other thieves. Consequently, if somebody deplores it should generally imply that he has, if not a cloak of virginal white over him, at least a very good case. I suggest that the Conservative Party is not in a particularly strong position when it comes to the question of broken pledges.
I do not propose to spend long on this, but if one goes back across the span of years to the beginning of Conservative rule after the war, one finds that many things were said which were indicated as "This is what we are going to do". I remember that in 1950 the then Leader of the Conservative Party, the late Sir Winston Churchill, in his election manifesto just before the Conservative Party surged into power said:
Of every £ earned in Britain today Government take and spend 8s. Conservatives

think that this is far too much. Most of the taxes come from the earnings of private persons. The amount they are able to spend and save is reduced, and their choice is limited.
This is all very fine, but when we look at the present rate of Government expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross national product we find that it is at a rate of about 8s. 6d. or so in the £. I think the latest figure is nearly 46 per cent.
Again, if we look at the 1951 pledge, a year after this. I am not going to spend much longer on this, but I would quote from the 1951 manifesto of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman please explain the basis on which he arrives at this figure, because it was accepted by both sides that taxation had been greatly reduced in 13 years as a percentage of the gross national income?

Mr. Johnston: In 1957 the figure was 40·6 per cent., in 1962 it was 44·1 per cent. So in fact it did rise. I think, with respect, the hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Taylor: What is the hon. Member's basis?

Mr. Johnston: I will declare my source. I am always willing to do that. It is Cmd. 2235 published by the Conservative Party in December, 1963, and I would commend the hon. Gentleman to go forthwith to the Library and study it.
As I was saying, the 1951 manifesto said:
A Conservative Government would cut out all unnecessary Government expenditure, simplify the administrative machine and prune waste and extravagance in every department.
This is an example of what was said at the beginning of Conservative rule and reflects very much on the credentials of the proposers of today's Motion, and of the sort of criticisms they are making today. In fact, as we know, Government expenditure has vastly increased. There are many reasons for this. Some of them are justifiable reasons, but it is also clear that there was a very considerable increase in Government expenditure throughout the period of Conservative rule. I think the Prime Minister himself today put the figure at between £4,000 million and £9,000 million.
Therefore, it would seem to me that the credentials of the proposers are not very strong at all. Mind you, it is a common fault among political parties to make promises. That is something which Liberals are certainly from time to time accused of doing, though I may say that that is something I certainly would be more than willing to debate at another time.
Let us look at the Motion as it stands and give it a little objective treatment, so far as I am capable of being objective: most of us are not very capable of being that. It speaks of "the Government's election pledges". I would make a quotation, and I am surprised it has not been made before, from the Labour Party's manifesto:
The country needs fresh and virile leadership. Labour is ready. Poised to swing its plans into instant operation. Impatient to apply the 'new thinking' that will end the chaos and sterility. Here is Labour's manifesto for the 1964 election restless with positive remedies for the problems the Tories have criminally neglected.
Really, this was very strong stuff. I remember that the programme "That was the week that was" which was running at that time dealt with the question of "instant Wilson", making an analogy with the television advertisements of the time.
The fact of the matter was that, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I think, readily admit, they were not poised to swing their plans into instant operation. The Prime Minister himself quoted the example of the land commission, which I think had been brought to his attention earlier by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). The fact was that the Labour Government were not ready for this piece of legislation or to transform their ideas into legislative form. They had their ideas, but they were not ready in that sense. Yet during the election the Prime Minister was asked,
What would be the most important measures you would take in the first year of a new Government?
That was in the Daily Mail of 19th September. He answered:
Since housing is undoubtedly the most pressing social problem, we shall not waste time before establishing our new land commission.
Obviously it was his intention to set up a land commission.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has really passed the point, but it has some significance, so perhaps he will permit me to ask him a question. He said that the amount taken in taxation in 1951 was 8s. in the £ and rather more in 1965. Then he quoted as his authority for saying that, a White Paper issued by the Conservative Government in 1963. It looks as though the Liberal Party looks up the record the year before last and not even the last year to get the facts.

Mr. Johnston: In the first place, this point has been passed a very long time ago. Secondly, I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman was not in at the beginning of my speech. I think I will leave it there, if he does not mind, but if he would care to write to me I will certainly explain it.
Now as I was saying regarding the land commission, the fact is that we have not had this land commission. The Prime Minister said that he hoped to introduce it in the new Session of Parliament in November. It was his intention, and it was hoped to do it in the first year. In fact this did not happen.
Then there is the question of house purchase and the hopes which were held out. This has been mentioned already by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale and one or two others who have spoken before me. Whatever view one takes about the difference between the First Secretary of State and the Sunday Express as to what the right hon. Gentleman said, the fact was that it was generally accepted that there would be a decrease in mortgage charges, that there would be lower interest rates for home buyers. The Labour Party said in its manifesto that it was its policy to
introduce a policy of lower interest rates for housing".
This did not happen and we have already heard quoted that they are up to 6¾ per cent.
It seems to me that, weighed against that, we have a list of things which the present Government have done, and in my part of the world there is the question of the Highlands and Islands Development Bill which this very evening is going through its final stages and it was urgently desired. In spite of what the Prime Minister said about the effect of his


speech in Inverness, I would say that this is a very good example of the Labour Party adopting a very longstanding piece of Liberal policy. That would not prevent me from complimenting the Government on the prompt introduction of it. Rather the contrary. It was interesting to notice that the Conservative Party, which consistently opposed this Measure for many years, did not go to the extent of opposing it in this House, because it knew of the real feeling in that part of the world in favour of that idea.
This brings me immediately to the other factors which must necessarily be considered in examining a Motion of this kind. The first factor is obviously the time factor which has already been mentioned. We cannot, obviously, expect any Government, whatever their colour or persuasion, to do things in nine months. How do we normally phrase a manifesto? We may say that a manifesto contains the prime elements of policy. First of all, there is an outline of short-term legislation. By "short-term" I mean about five years, because that is the normal expectation of life of a Parliament. Secondly, there is the vein of what one might call the long-term vision, and I hope that there are many idealists on both sides of the House who feel that when their party comes to power this does not mean just a series of specific Measures to be put on the Statute Book, but the development of a new feeling in the country and the shaping of society in a new way. This finds but one expression in certain phrases in the party manifestos, but one does not expect this sort of thing to happen in a short time.

Mr. Shore: There is also a small third section which can reasonably go into a manifesto. I am referring to the few actions which can be taken almost at once. Generally they are actions which amount to saying "No". For instance, one can say "No" to the proposal to close certain railway lines. One can give the same answer in respect of office development in London. One can also say "No" to an excess of imports, by clamping on some kind of restriction. It is important to bring in this element as well as it will help to explain some of the confusion in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Johnston: There is a further point to be made with regard to the time factor. There has been what one might describe as a running General Election since 1961 or 1962, and it looks as though it is the intention to continue that state of affairs. I do not think that this is good for the country, nor do I think that it is particularly sensible to engage in this sort of criticism after such a short time. What the country desperately needs is stability, and this cannot be achieved if people get the impression that an election is imminent.
My next point on the time factor concerns the question of cost. One must clearly differentiate between the inability of the Government immediately to frame their proposals in legislative form—for example, the Land Commission Bill, which is a failure of Government—and their failure as an Opposition. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition for 13 years, yet they failed to frame legislation on this subject even though they had the facilities for doing so, but they cannot necessarily be criticised for inheriting a situation which makes it impossible for them to do certain things which they hoped to do. We on this bench feel that the responsibility for the economic crisis of last autumn rests fairly and squarely on the Conservative Party. Therefore, although some of the Measures taken by the Government are welcome, if they had acted more firmly and more quickly things would not be as bad as they are now.
To put it in terms of Scots law, the Motion is not proven. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who do not have the good fortune to be Scotsmen, that means not that the charge is dismissed but that the verdict is delayed until new evidence is found. We feel that there is insufficient evidence to justify this kind of Motion.
There is one further point which I should like to make with regard to the Motion, and that is that its emotional crux lies in the use of the emotive word "honour". The Motion refers to the failure of the Government to honour their election pledges. As has ben said, if one does not honour something one is engaged in an exercise whereby one deceives. I think that that is the weakest argument of all, because if Members of


the Conservative Party are seriously saying that the public were bluffed—I maintain that the public are not all that gullible—and that they fell lock, stock and barrel for the alluring promises made to them by that compulsive siren the First Secretary and rushed out and tumbled over themselves to vote Labour, I must say that we are being called on to believe something which is not true at all. After all, the total Labour vote at the last election fell by comparison with the previous one, and it is because of our crazy electoral system that we continually produce crazy results.
It is a criticism of the Liberal Party, of the Conservative Party, and indeed a little while ago of the Labour Party, that because of our party system any opposition party depends for its advancement on the failure of the Government party. However good one's intentions and ideals, if the Government party is making a good job of things the likelihood is that it will not be turned out of office because people do not wish to change an Administration which is working satisfactorily and which is giving them the sort of economic and spiritual answers for which they are looking.
It is therefore fair to say that after 13 years of Conservative Government it was not merely a question of people rushing to join the Labour Party because that party promised them better things, but there was a real sickness in the country and a real tiredness with the failure of the Conservative Party to take advantage of the many opportunities which it had to put things right.

Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Gentleman says that the electorate tend to go on returning to power a party with which they are satisfied. Would not he agree that during the three elections in the 'fifties the electorate did just that? When he is arguing that there were 13 years of failure and broken promises, is it not relevant to point out that the Tory Party won one election after another during those years?

Mr. Johnston: It may be relevant to do so, but it does not destroy my argument. The hon. Gentleman is talking about an historical situation. It may be that the country was pleased with the Conservative Party during those years. There was an increase in prosperity

during that period, but the point I am making is that the Conservative Party did not take advantage of that situation in the way that it ought to have done. I do not necessarily dissent from the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but nevertheless I regard this Motion as primarily a party political exercise without any real effective justification. Perhaps this is the last kick of the previous Tory heirarchy, which has now been changed. We on this bench compliment the new Leader of the Conservative Party on his appointment to that office and wish him well in the future. I noticed in the newspapers this morning that he said that the Conservatives would fight the Government on their policy. I hope that they will, because that is the sort of fighting that we should have in this House.
I have devoted my speech to the Motion, and I do not wish to speak for very much longer, but there are one or two points that I must make about the Amendment. It is natural that the Government should table this kind of Amendment. We, too, thought of putting down an Amendment. One of our Members, in a rather frivolous mood, thought that it might be a good idea to delete the words after "deplores" so that the Motion would read:
This House deplores the intention of Her Majesty's Government to implement their election pledges, and further deplores the fact that the Opposition are urging the Government to implement such measures as the nationalisation of steel",
but we felt that such an exercise was not desirable.
The Government have tabled a political Amendment saying that they are a great Government and that they are doing a fine job. It is natural that they should do that, but this is not necessarily something that we on this bench can support. We disagree with the Labour Party on many things. We disagree with hon. Gentlemen opposite over taxation. We disagree with them over nationalisation and over their approach to industrial relations. We disagree with them over the governmental structure, and we also disagree with them over foreign affairs and defence. The Amendment cannot be supported by us, and the Motion is certainly not one that we can support in any way.
The people outside the House—the ones who are round about us and who


sent us here to work as well as we are able for the advancement of our country—will not thank us for using our abilities for party fraction. They would appreciate much more our sitting down and trying to deal with the fundamental problem that face this nation—the difficulties of industrial relations and of trying to bring the two sides of industry together which is fundamental so that we have a unified country moving forward.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who made an entertaining speech, referred to the fact that we had adopted one aspect of Liberal policy. For many years the Liberals have deservedly served in opposition, in which time they have embraced so many policies that it was statistically inevitable that, sooner or later, there would be a certain coincidence of policy. What is remarkable is that for members of a party which still claims to be radical they do not find a little more coincidence with our policies.
It is also interesting to point out that just an hour ago, when we had a Count—on the day when, we are told, a new dynamic Conservative leadership was about to emerge, and when the Opposition were about to put pressure on the Government, in order to fight them and harry them from office—the Conservative benches could muster only five Members. This is the enthusiasm with which they are now fighting the Government.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I must point out something that is often forgotten by the hon. Member and his colleagues. On many occasions other important business is going on outside the Chamber. The Conservative Party sat here day after day when only two or three Government supporters were in the House when the Finance Bill was being debated.

Mr. Williams: In reply, I would say that we have long expected Conservative Members to put the interests and needs of the Conservative Party before those of the country. We would not expect them to be here, serving the needs of the country, when they have a meeting they could attend elsewhere. We see here the whole

significance of the change in Tory leadership. It means that instead of ambling aimlessly towards defeat they will now be led vigorously to defeat at the next election.
We should not overlook the significance of the fact that this Motion came forward at all from the Conservative Party. If hon. Members opposite mean what they say in their Motion it is a major victory for morality in this country and it represents a major conversion. At last, it seems, the Conservatives have realised that an election promise is something which should be kept. We have been trying to tell them this for 13 years, with little success. During that period we have had many Tory broken promises. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister listed some of them. They have debased the political coinage of the country and to some extent undermined the standing of the House in the country, because people have felt that their words could not be trusted in matters of policy.
One could well write the history of the 1950s in terms of Tory broken promises. There has been the spiraling cost of living—which has risen 42 per cent. in the last 10 years and 51 per cent. over the whole of their spell of office—which we can relate to their promises to mend the hole in the purse and their creation of a property-owning democracy. It was not very democratic to own a house, because the Conservatives cut back very heavily on council house building. There was nothing very democratic in it for the property owners, because the Conservatives cut back housing in that respect, too, later.
They deluded many people into thinking that under Conservative leadership they would have a house of their own.

Mr. Curran: I put to the hon. Member the same point that I put to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). During the 13 years of broken promises that he has told us about—years of Tory cheating of the voters—the Tory Party won election after election. How does he explain that? If the promises were not being kept why did the voters go on returning the party that made them?

Mr. Williams: That is answered by saying that the Conservatives put forward a series of bigger and better


promises. The misfortune of the 1950s is that whereas the Greeks always had a word for it the Tories always had a solution for it. They were always very good at advertising, but they were not very good at solving problems. They could always appeal to the public through a good advertising campaign, although eventually it came home to the electors what the real situation was.
The Conservatives spoke of it as a landslide victory when they increased their majority from 30 to 100. How much more of a landslide was it when they lost that 100-seat majority completely at one sweep? The public have come to realise the real nature of Conservatism.
Already hon. Members opposite, who are telling us that we ought to honour our election pledges, have fallen into disgrace—if I may use that word—in respect of the next election. They are already ahead of themselves. This spell in opposition is putting some verve into them, but they have already started breaking their promises for the next election. Only a few weeks ago, on television, we were assured that at the next election the Conservative Party would be led by a certain right hon. Gentleman who has now, unfortunately, departed from the scene. They are ahead of themselves. Do not let us have any show of virtue from them about keeping promises.
My intention is to talk about a set of promises which were linked to Wales, and to ask how far those promises, as embodied in the policy statement, have been fulfilled. I regret to say that, unfortunately, none of those Conservative Members who represent Wales have seen fit to be present in the House—not even the Conservative spokesman for Wales. First, we promised to create a real Secretary of State for Wales. The Tories opposed this. We have now set up this office, and the former Leader of the Opposition has said that the Conservatives would not abolish the office if they came back to power.
But not only have we set up this office; we have been gradually increasing its range of responsibility beyond what we stated in the election manifesto. We have added a responsibility for roads. We heard only last Saturday from the Prime Minister, in Newtown, that a certain responsibility will also be given to

the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of higher education. As a result of all these measures Wales has been given a clear voice in the Cabinet. Not only that; it has been given a Welsh voice in the Cabinet.
The Conservatives do not seem to know where Wales is. They have perambulated all around Britain trying to find it. We had one charming gentleman who had a Scots name—Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, as he was when he was in this House. We had a Member who represented one of the London constituencies. We even got as far as Leeds. The Tories obviously thought that Wales was one of the Ridings of Yorkshire. Now we have reached Hereford. The Tories have not yet come to the Floor of this House to find one elected Conservative Member whom they would consider fit to speak for Wales. Labour Members have had more regard for Conservative Members from Wales than the Conservative Members themselves have had.
Not only have we given the Cabinet a Welsh voice; we have given it a voice which is intended to speak purely about Wales, instead of a voice which speaks in respect of various other duties coincidentally, as occurred under the Conservatives. Under them the Secretary of State for Wales also dealt with one of the trivia of the Home Office, or the minor problems of housing all over Britain. We now have a Welsh Secretary of State who deals exclusively with the problems of Wales, and we therefore have a greater chance of her problems being solved.
We promised a new town for Wales, and already surveys are being undertaken and consultants have been appointed. We expect to have a report in the early autumn. That is very quick action on such an important development, but it was attacked in the Welsh Grand Committee by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They said that it was ill-considered, but the remarkable thing is that they have never made any investigations on which to found their rejection of it as an idea.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the 16 years during which I have been in the House


this is the first time that we have had a full Session where there has not been a day given to debate Wales?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making a slight mistake. I was not aware that we had yet had a full Session. I was under the impression that we still had some of the Session to come. He knows the procedure of the House better than I do, but I thought that we went on with the Session when we came back in October, and that that would seem to be a more suitable time. If I am wrong, no doubt he will correct me. But I am very interested to hear him say that this is the first Session in which he cannot remember a Welsh day. When did the hon. Gentleman's party give us a Welsh day? It gave it to us on the very last day before the Summer Recess, year after year.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not try and belittle what the Government are doing for Wales. They are actually solving problems which have existed in Wales for a long time. As I have said, consultants for the new town have been appointed, and it is under way. We have also made a declaration about leaseholds. In December, as soon as we got into office, we fulfilled part of our pledge by saying that we were putting a standstill on the loss of houses through the leasehold system, and already we have given security. In addition, we had a pledge from the Prime Minister—and he repeated it today—which he made at Newtown on Saturday, that leasehold reform would be introduced next Session. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite flatly refused to introduce legislation for 13 years; they were not interested. One or two went through pantomimic performances, displaying a not very far-reaching support for it, but they made sure that it never got through. In that sense, Wales has already seen the benefit of a Labour Government.
We have seen the benefit in housing. Already we have been told that there will be 5 per cent. more houses built in Wales this year than there were last year.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: After Tuesday's announcement?

Mr. Williams: Oh, yes. These houses are already started. There will be 5 per cent. more.
Compare that with the record under the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. During a recent debate on housing we heard from them about a highly successful Conservative housing campaign, but let us see how highly successful it was and how sincere it was in Wales. In 1951, having won an election on the housing programme, for a couple of years they did increase the number of houses. In 1954, they were building more houses than were built in 1951. They achieved that, but what I have never understood is why, in 1955, they built fewer than in 1954; why, in 1956, they built fewer than in 1955; why, in 1957, they built fewer than in 1956; and why, in 1958, they built fewer than in 1957. By 1958, for every 100 houses that had been built in Wales in 1954, they were building only 66. That is why we still have a hard-core problem of housing in Wales.
As a result, it was not until 1964 that the number of houses built managed to equal the number which had been built 10 years before, and the loss in those intervening 10 years of disinterest and mismanagement was the equivalent of the output of 22 months, if they had maintained the 1954 output. In other words, if the 1954 output had been kept up they could have said that they were putting the building industry on holiday for 22 months, and they would still have built the same number of houses.
Between 1963 and 1964, they achieved an increase in Wales of 20 per cent. They expect people to accept that as creditable, but surely it is their own indictment. What occurred in the building industry between 1963 and 1964 to enable that to happen? Was there an increase in the number of workers and an increase in capital outlay? No. What there was in 1964 that had been lacking before was not the means to produce houses, but the will to produce them. That is what was lacking in 10 years of Conservative Government. Twenty-seven thousand people are without houses or are living in sub-standard housing because of the calculated housing policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I would like briefly to refer to what has happened in relation to industrial development in Wales. Here again, the people of Wales owe a debt of gratitude to the Labour Government. They contrast it sharply with what happened


under the previous Administration. Already, new development districts have been set up and new firms are coming in. In Swansea, the town which I have the honour to represent, though not in my own constituency, we have recently had a Ford factory come as a result of negotiations undertaken by the Welsh Office and the Board of Trade in December.
We have had a planning board set up. It may be asked, what is the value of planning boards? To that I would reply, what is the importance of not having planning boards? Under a Conservative Government, Wales had a desperate problem of depopulation in the centre of the country, and we found that, far from dealing with the problem—because they had no technique for controlling and planning—under the Tories the rate of depopulation between 1951 and 1963 actually doubled, because they did not plan to cure it. Under the Tories, the rate of increase in the number of jobs in Wales was half that of the rest of Britain, and they told us that we shared fully in the prosperity of Britain How fully did we share?
What about incomes standards? The Tories say that in Wales they are high, and they are, if you consider only one statistical fact. They are high because of one industry, steel. If you take steel wages out of the average earnings in Wales and if you take them out of the average earnings in England, the average earnings in Wales are 16s. 2d. a week lower than they are in England. It may be said, what is 16s. 2d.? What it indicates is the nature of the Welsh problem. We have not got the high wage industries which have been set up in England. We were not given a fair stake in the twentieth century by the previous Government, and they did not establish in Wales the industries that we will need if prosperity is to carry on through to the end of the century.
For those reasons, I suggest that what has happened under the present Government has been quite remarkable, particularly when we have been working with a majority of three, and when we inherited a deficit of £800 million, which means that not only do we have to pay that back but we have to limit our spending to make sure that we do not repeat it. Controlled by the economic situation

which we inherited, in foreign policy, in peace bids in Vietnam, in saving the £, we have found that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite have all too often stabbed in the back the efforts that have been made by the Government to save the situation for the country.
Without hesitation, I say that the people of Wales have no doubt that the Government have kept faith with Wales.

7.40 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) will forgive me if I do not directly follow his speech but comment on it as I go along. At the outset I wish to say something about the Prime Minister's speech. I thought it one of the most unconvincing speeches I have every heard in this House. The hysterical cheers of Government supporters when he sat down did not conceal from any of us the very low morale there is on the benches opposite nor the guilty consciences of many hon. Members opposite because of the broken promises we are debating today. It was notable that in his speech he barely answered a single point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) in opening the debate. It was a really remarkable achievement.
This debate is about our view that it is unforgivable for politicians to make promises which are unrealistic or unrelated to the nation's resources and therefore unlikely to be carried out. As I was in this House in 1945, I shall make a brief comparison with the situation which arose then. I shall not talk about the Labour manifesto of 1945, "Let us Face the Future", an over-optimistic, starry-eyed and somewhat naive document, but I shall say a few words about some of the speeches, articles and broadcasts made by leaders of the party opposite in 1945 and make some comparisons with last year.
I acquit the Socialist Party absolutely of any deliberate policy of wishing to mislead the public in any way in 1945. I do not believe they did that. I do not accuse them for one moment of dishonest politics or of making promises they did not think they could carry out, but many of the promises they made


were extremely rash and extremely misleading. That was in 1945.
Looking back it is interesting to find that on the subject of housing we were told by Cabinet Ministers that there was "an immediate plan for 4 million well-planned and well-built houses." At the rate achieved in the six years of that Government it would have taken 22 years to build 4 million. We were told that there was a plan for "new and better old-age pensions" which would be introduced at once". In fact is was a terrible story of the 26s. pension at the last moment being raised to 30s. and even then not given to everyone. We were told by an ex-Minister that unemployment would be "eliminated" and that nationalisation "would ensure that goods would be available at decent prices for everyone." That was a big laugh. Public ownership of gas and electricity undertakings would "lower prices for everyone". That was another big laugh. We were told,
Labour will protect your savings against rising prices".
Every pound which was saved in 1945 was worth only 15s. six years later. We were even told in an election broadcast,
You can have all you want.
If that was not a big promise I do not know what was.
These were the sort of promises made out of over-confidence, inexperience and, to some extent, irresponsibility, but with no deliberate intention, I suggest, to mislead the electorate, although, in fact, the electorate was misled. It gave evidence of that when it voted in 1951. Failure to carry out those promises was an important factor in our winning three General Elections in a row with an increased majority each time. I go so far as to say that there is no doubt that we would have won four in a row but for the lavish promises made in the last General Election, which people took at their face value. Those promises were not just starry-eyed, well-meaning, naive, irresponsible promises but promises which were so far beyond the nation's resources that the chances of carrying them out were not 10 to 1 against or 100 to 1 against—there was no chance of carrying them out at all and, therefore, they should never have been made.
We are offered three excuses why many of the things promised, and which people had a right to assume would be carried out in the first Session of this Parliament, have not been carried out. We are told that there has been too little Parliamentary time. Everyone knows that is rubbish. We have had time for a vicious, unnecessary Finance Bill—the longest, I think, in history—taking a terrific amount of Parliamentary time. There has been time to debate an anti-hanging Bill in Government time which everyone knows the great majority of the general public are opposed to, and ample time for all kinds of nonsense, but no time to carry out these pledges.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: rose—

Sir T. Beamish: I do not want to give way much as I want to make only a short speech.

Mr. Lomas: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will concede the point that we still have another four years to go? These are only the first 12 months.

Sir T. Beamish: That is the very last thing I would concede. I should be surprised if the party opposite had four months to go. The second excuse made is that the party opposite inherited a terrible economic mess after 13 years of Tory misrule—

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): Hear, hear.

Sir T. Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear", but it was the Prime Minister himself who said only two weeks before the General Election:
I do not believe we are facing any danger to sterling, any run on the £.
On 23rd November he said:
so far as the trade gap is concerned … there were reserves and borrowings more than adequate to meet this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 933.]
This cannot be denied. This excuse will not wash. The party opposite knew exactly the balance of payments position when they made their promises during the General Election. It was a difficult position, but they knew it just as well as we did. This is a fact. The Prime Minister admitted it before the election and after the election. It was in the light


of the known balance of payments position that these promises were made, so that excuse will not wash either.
I find a third excuse. I apologise that I have not warned the right hon. Gentleman concerned. It is difficult before a debate like this to warn every hon. Member that one might refer to him. I have not informed the First Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State for Economic Affairs that I would quote something which he has been reported in inverted commas, in a newspaper recently, as saying. He gave another excuse, and perhaps this might be a valid one. According to the Press:
He promised that every pledge given in the Labour manifesto would be honoured by the end of their term of office, 'assuming, of course, that our term of office will be at least 10 years'.
This may be the explanation. It is just possible that, "Let's go with Labour" left out this sentence by mistake, as a printer's error. That could be an explanation, that it was assumed by those who made these promises that the Socialist Party would be in power for 10 years. It is an odd reason for making such promises.
The difference between 1945, between promises made then and promises made in the 1964 General Election, is very contrasting. I have said that I acquit the party opposite absolutely of any intention to mislead in 1945, but I certainly do not do so in regard to promises made in 1964. Many of the promises made were plainly dishonest. If they had not been made I do not believe the party opposite would have won the election. I am sure of this.
I think it worth while having a look at some of those premises. Some of them have been quoted and some have not. I do not want to quote too many, but it is worth having on the record why this debate has arisen and what sort of promises were made. I shall not quote the names of those who made the promises, but in every single instance they are well known members of the party opposite and the promises were made in broadcasts, speeches, election addresses or the party manifesto.
First there was:
The Labour Party will not need to increase the general level of taxes to pay for its programme.

That was said by a Cabinet Minister and confirmed by the Prime Minister himself. Another Cabinet Minister said:
The continual rise in the cost of living can, must and will be halted to give the housewife relief and her family a genuine rise in their standard of living.
Transport:
a dynamic expansion of the road programme
was promised by an ex-Cabinet Minister. Home ownership—the Prime Minister promised
One hundred per cent mortgages, lower interest rates and cheaper legal charges".
Another promise was
Special low interest rates for house purchase".
Education—we were promised "greatly increased school building" and
greatly increased recruitment and training of teachers".
We were promised
a massive programme in higher, further and university education".
We were promised that the Labour Party would guarantee at least half pay in the case of sickness and unemployment. "Signposts for the Sixties" had earlier said that this would be one of the "first jobs" of a Labour Government. There was no mention of a 10-year period of office there. We were promised by the Prime Minister:
An income guarantee will ensure that everyone has enough to live on as a right, and without recourse to National Insurance This will come without delay.
There is no mention about it coming in 10 years. It was to come "without delay".
We were told by another Cabinet Minister:
One of the first jobs of the next Labour Government will be to introduce a new 'income guarantee' which will apply to everyone over 65 and to every widow.
I emphasise "one of the first jobs". There was no mention of 10 years there. What a scandalous disgrace this is. Yesterday I was horrified to hear both Government spokesmen virtually denying that the Prime Minister himself and the Colonial Secretary, as Chairman of the Labour Party, and the spokesman for the party opposite in a debate last spring had all promised, or practically promised, parity for public service pensioners and for Armed Forces pensioners. I have four quotations in my hand, two of them


from the Prime Minister, making absolutely clear promises of parity for public service and Armed Forces pensioners. I challenge the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, to deny that these promises were made. He knows full well that they were made, and so do the public service and the Armed Forces pensioners. They feel terribly badly let down.
Lastly, on this list of promises, the reform of the rating system, something which matters a great deal in my constituency. This was a promise which, like many of the other promises, won thousands of votes for the Labour Party. My right hon. Friend quoted this:
We shall give early relief"—
I emphasise this, not in 10 years—
to ratepayers by transferring a large part of the burden … from the rates to the Exchequer.
There has been no relief. Instead, there has been the biggest single rise in rates for many years, averaging 14 per cent. throughout the land. Tens of thousands of people living on fixed incomes are suffering tortures and unhappiness as a result. These are people who believed the promise that "early" relief would be given.
The promises given in 1964 were a very different kettle of fish from those given in 1945. The electorate is increasingly sophisticated. This goes without saying. But many people were taken in by these promises. There is no doubt about that. They feel that they were deliberately foxed. Who can blame them for accusing the party opposite of double dealing in politics? For this the Prime Minister himself bears a very heavy responsibility. Democracy is in danger when promises so carelessly, even callously, given can be so casually broken. Honest politics have been debated by the giving of these promises in this way, and the people who made these promises are laying themselves open to the charge that politics is a dirty game, which I do not believe it is. By making these promises they are running a grave risk of encouraging cynicism in the electorate.
Any party that knowingly makes promises of this character is bound to pay the price next time round. The manifesto, coupled with the broadcasts and the

election addresses and speeches, from a few of which I have quoted, at the 1964 General Election amounted to a confidence trick on the electorate. Put together, they amounted, as has been said several times today, to the issuing of a false political prospectus. This was unforgivable, and it will not be forgiven.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: It is not my intention to follow what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has said, because so much of it is based on the assmption that the Government who were returned nine or ten months ago should in that time have implemented a programme which was designed for five years. It must be emphasised that the Government have been in power for only nine or ten months, one-sixth of the time that they are entitled to be in power and one-sixteenth of the time that the party opposite were in power during 1951 and 1964.
We have a long way to go. The steps that we have taken in the nine or ten months we have been in power reflect in many ways great credit upon the Government faced, as they have been, with a terrible economic situation. It is important that members of the Liberal Party should recognise that we have survived in this Parliament, shall continue to survive, and that we have not been dependent upon them for their support. The Liberal Party is dependent upon us if it wants the social reforms that it claims are part and parcel of its policy and philosophy brough into effect. The Tory Party will certainly not bring in the great social benefits that we have been, and will be attempting, to bring in.
We have been criticised for not doing all that we promised in a short space of time. It is cheek and impertinence on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to say that we should have done everything in this short space of time. We knew in the run-up to the election that the Conservative Party had been playing tricks. We knew that it was playing the electioneering game. We knew that it had hung on to office, though it had a dispute over its leadership then, as it has now—or, rather, it has just resolved one. The Conservatives clung on in the hope that something would turn


up. The Conservative Party is the Micawber of British politics. The Conservatives clung on until the last month, until they were forced to go to the country so that the nation could reach a verdict.
Although we knew this and although we knew that certain things were being concealed, it was not until we came to power and the books were examined that we realised that much had been kept secret in the hope of it working advantageously to the Conservative Party.

Sir T. Beamish: Will the hon. Gentleman give just one example of anything which was kept secret?

Mr. Lomas: Yes, I will. First, a report on the state of the schools was not published until after the election, because the Conservatives were frightened of the consequences. Secondly, they did not disclose the terrible financial situation into which we were moving. Thirdly, the Conservatives concealed the fact that the Post Office had a deficit of £100 million. I could give many more examples. The policy of the Tory Party has been to conceal the true issues, in the hope of getting some electoral gain from such a policy.
During the last nine months of Tory government, between January and September, 1964, it is an undeniable fact that production did not increase by one single point. We know the heartless way in which the Tories looked after their own interests. People were evicted from their homes. They became the victims of landlordism and all kinds of evils of that kind. The Tories concealed many important facts which should have been placed before the nation.
As a Government and a party we decided that this attitude had to be changed and one of the things we set out to do was to try to rid the country of the word "Rachmanism" which had become synonymous with the Tory Party. It was a part of the whole outlook and mentality of the Conservative Party. We have recently passed the Rent Bill, which is a good thing in itself and which will get rid of many of the evils with which we were faced in those intervening years. By giving security of tenure and protecting people from exiction we are doing useful things, and also keeping our promise to the electorate.
I know what happened in Huddersfield during the period that the Tories were in power. That great county borough is still faced with a situation in which out of 40,000 houses, 8,000 have no bath and 10,000 have no inside toilet. That is a reflection upon the fact that the Tories were in power for 13 years but did very little about that housing situation.
That was the background when we came to power—a terrible mess with £700 million or £800 million deficit in our balance of payments, imports entirely out of control, goods being imported and not sufficient exported. We had to take immediate action. But, faced with that situation, we still honoured our election promise to the old and the sick and the weak and to people for whom we had specifically promised that we would do something immediately. 'We abolished the earnings rule for widows and trebled the pension of 10s. widows and we abolished prescription charges.
Of course the Conservative Party could not openly oppose those things, but why then had it not done them while still in power? Were hon. Members opposite still in favour of us giving people on National Assistance some kind of Christmas box to get them over the worst period of the winter? They did not vote against many of these things, but they must have been against them because they sought to do little about them and, when they had the opportunity they refused to vote the money to make them possible now.
If it is true, as we are told, that we are spending too much on the social services, will any hon. Member opposite tell me what we should cut, how we should reduce and where we should do it? There is no point in saying that we must reduce public expenditure without identifying the projects in mind.
We have kept our promises in many different ways. In spite of the crisis with which we are now faced, we have done what we could to reduce public expenditure. The review of defence programmes which is now taking place should be applauded. Under the Conservative Party, hundreds of millions of pounds were frittered away on projects and missiles which were never any good and which soon lost any useful purpose which they might have had. The Government should


be applauded for trying to find ways and means of reducing and at the same time making more efficient our whole defence programme. Personally, I would like there to be a much greater cut in defence, because until defence costs bear a realistic relation to the economy as a whole, we shall never get anywhere.
Equally, we have attempted to do something which hon. Members opposite failed to do in the whole time that they were in power—to stimulate exports and to try to ensure that we sell more abroad. I had the pleasure only a few weeks ago of going on an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iceland. It is a very small country with a very small population, but what was true in that country must be true in others. I was told by the chief purchasing officer on behalf of the Iceland Government that British exporters did not go there, but waited until someone got in touch with them, which they did by letter. People in areas like Iceland want to see and talk to representatives of British industry and discuss problems with them face to face, and the Government are now doing everything they can to assist exports in that way.
Again, it was essential that we should meet the pledge in our election manifesto that we would overhaul our antiquated tax system. This is what we have been doing. We said that we would attack business expenses and we have started doing so. We said that we would attack the great capital gains which were being made without any work being done for them, and we have been doing that. In that respect, too, we have kept our promises. These reforms were long overdue, but the Conservative Party was loth to undertake them because it represents not the ordinary individual but the great vested interests. We believe that the burden of taxation must be more equitably shared, but do the Tories believe that? If they do, why did we have such a sustained argument against the Finance Bill which in many respects sought to redistribute the whole burden of taxation?
Equally, we promised to introduce another reform which was long overdue—the setting up of regional councils to look after areas to which it was necessary to take work and where it was necessary to

set up new kinds of employment. In case of any falling-off in work in the transfer of men from one job to another, we introduced, as we promised, a Redundancy Payments Bill to help to deal with the situation.
Through the action of the First Secretary, we have kept an election promise that we would introduce an incomes policy; not a wage freeze but an incomes policy, not the pay pause which we had in 1961 when, as a Health Service worker, I realised only too well what it meant to have wages held back when the Whitley Council reached agreement and the Minister stepped in and prevented the award. An incomes policy is not a wage freeze but is the realisation that those at the bottom of the scale should receive greater rewards than they are getting and that those at the top in this set of circumstances should take something slightly less.
We have honoured another election promise in the setting-up of the Incomes and Prices Review Board which is already having its effect, as was seen only recently with road haulage rates. These are definite political promises which we made in our election manifesto and which we are honouring.
I accuse the Conservative Party of being nothing more or less than political hypocrites in that hon. Members opposite want it both ways. They want defence costs to go on soaring and they want greater subsidies to the farmers, but they are not prepared to vote the money essential to obtain these things. Again I ask hon. Members opposite where they would cut and where they would attack the social services if they were the Government.
Overseas we have attempted to repair the damage which was done to the Commonwealth by the hasty and ill-conceived action of hon. Members opposite when they sought to take us into the Common Market without giving any, or very little, thought to the effect which that would have on the Commonwealth. We have cemented the Commonwealth together much more than has ever been the case before.
In the limited sphere in which we can operate we have tried to initiate greater moves for peace, but from the Opposition all we have had has been carping, baying,


yapping criticism of every step we have taken. The Prime Minister's initiative at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was treated almost with disdain and at the same time the sending of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to Vietnam was treated as a joke. We are working for peace, something we have been attempting all the time that we have been a political party.
I have sat on these benches for nine months, but I have not yet heard a single constructive comment from hon. Members opposite. From beginning to end, it has been nothing but destructive comment. The nation has had more than enough of Toryism. For 13 years it suffered under the Tories. The Tories appealed to base materialism, but we are trying to appeal to something better. We have thought of the people who need our help and assistance, and they have turned to us and we shall not let them down, either as a Government or as a party.
If we are given the time—and the time is ours, for we can have an election whenever we choose and not when hon. Members opposite decide—we shall get out of this mess. Because we have a Government with guts and which believes in keeping its election promises and because we stand by those election promises, I am convinced that when the election comes, in twelve months, or two, three or four years, we shall win it handsomely and we shall have laid the foundations on which we can build the kind of society which we set out to build when we started on this great drive forward in 1945.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. C. M. Woodhouse: The Prime Minister, at the end of his speech, said two things; in one case, he quoted the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill, that manifestos do not matter and no attempt need be made to carry them out, and in the other—I cannot imitate the eloquence with which he uttered the words—he said that the Labour Party manifesto would be carried out.
This equivocation illustrates one of the difficulties that we are in in this debate, the difficulty of knowing exactly what the Labour Party did promise and

what it meant by it, and the difficulty of knowing this especially in the case of local pledges, the kind of promises which were scattered around the constituencies to swing votes here and there, with no regard to the consistency of those local promises with the total national programme.
The difficulty depends on whether one is to rely on the Labour Party's manifesto or the statements made by the Prime Minister and some of his senior colleagues in their speeches during the year or so before the General Election took place. We know where we are in cases where there was a straight contradiction between the manifesto and the pre-election speeches, as in the case of immigration policy. On this side of the House at least, we have no doubt that the manifesto was deliberately phrased in ambiguous terms to enable the Government to reverse their way out of a foolish position, as, for instance, was the case with their financial policies.
But in some matters we just do not know whether there was an undertaking being given or not, and it is with one of those that I want to deal. I shall be brief, and I apologise to the House for the fact that this will in part be a parochial matter, but even though it is parochial, it is typical, because parochial pledges of the same kind were given all over the country. The matter also involves national issues. It involves, indeed, one of the central issues of the Labour Party manifesto, the issue of rate reform.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out, the manifesto promised not only reform of the rating system but also interim Measures to give early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from local authorities to the Exchequer. Everybody knows that that has not yet been done. Even the interim measures have not been carried out. I do not deny that this is an extremely difficult operation. I am not blaming the Labour Party for having failed to carry out this extremely difficult and complex operation. I blame it for ever having promised that it would do it. The whole gravamen of the charge against the Government is not so much that they have failed to carry out their promises as that they


saddled themselves with so many promises which would be impossible to carry out.
But there is one aspect of rating reform which it is possible to isolate from the general question. It is very simple to carry out the reform about which I wish to speak once a decision in principle is taken. It is one which the electors in my constituency and in the sister constituency of Cambridge were led to believe that the Labour Party had decided in principle and that the Labour Government both could and would immediately carry out. This pledge concerns the intricate matter, which I will not elaborate in detail, of the rate relief enjoyed by the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and them alone among all the university institutions, at the expense of the other ratepayers.
I will merely summarise the crux of this problem and the pledge that appeared to have been given. The problem is whether or not this admitted anomaly should be cured by an Exchequer subsidy. I do not wish to attack the Government on this; I merely seek information. I just want to ask whether there was or was not an undertaking given by the Labour Party to seek a possible cure by means of an Exchequer subsidy. The electors in my constituency certainly believed that there was such an undertaking, and they found it in a letter written by the General Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Len Williams, to the Oxford City Labour Party, which was prominently published in the Oxford newspapers on 31st January last year.
They also thought that this undertaking was confirmed by a letter published in the same Oxford papers from the agent of the Oxford City Labour Party a few weeks later in which he repeated and confirmed the words of the General Secretary, saying that the next Labour Government had been committed to initiate early discussions between the Treasury, the University Grants Committee and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with a view to special grants being made to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges through the U.G.C. in lieu of rates.
All this appeared to amount to a definite undertaking. I say that it

"appeared" to do so, because since the Government came into office the Labour candidate at Oxford, in the General Election, on being reminded of this apparent undertaking, denied publicly that there had been any undertaking, and on being reminded of the words of his own agent, he denied that his agent had any right to make statements of policy. In these denials he was supported, though somewhat ambiguously by the chairman of his party. I accepted those denials, because I have respect for the honour of these men, but, curiously enough, when I put the same point to Ministers in the House of Commons they did not deny that there had been an undertaking, though they did not exactly admit it, either.
In a debate on 25th March this year, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said:
It is not a question of an embarrassing pledge which we want to forget."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 865.]
That can, of course, mean that there was a pledge and the Government are doing their best to carry it out, or it could mean that there was no pledge. I should like to know which. On the face of it, I should have no hesitation in believing the first, and preferable, alternative, that there was a pledge and it is to be carried out, were it not for the fact that the second, and more regrettable, alternative has been publicly supported by the Labour candidate in Oxford and his chairman.
Unfortunately, too, every Question which I have tabled in the House on the assumption that the pledge existed and is being honoured is being met with increasingly evasive and uninformative Answers. The time has come to seek a definite answer. Was there a pledge to initiate early discussions on an Exchequer subsidy or not? Who is right—the Labour Party agent in Oxford, ambiguously supported by the Minister who replied to the debate, in saying that there was a pledge, or the Labour candidate in Oxford, apparently supported by his own chairman in saying that there was not? If I may have an unequivocal answer tonight from whichever Minister winds up the debate, I will make him a fair offer. If the answer is that there was a pledge, that it has been honoured and that a


satisfactory settlement based upon an Exchequer subsidy is to be announced in the early future, preferably before the Summer Recess, I should not feel disposed to vote against the Government tonight, but I should be very surprised if I receive that answer.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) will forgive me if I do not follow him in dealing with the parochial problems he raised. I thought that the subject was one for an Adjournment debate rather than for this great debate to censure the Government. Indeed, hon. Members opposite seem to be scraping the barrel. Now we have been told about a local promise confined to Oxford. That is almost better than the intervention about white fish, which was the best red herring in the debate.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), rather than deal with the promises we made in our recent election manifesto, dealt with the promises made in "Let Us Face the Future" in 1945. He claimed that the 1945–51 Government did not fulfil the promises in that manifesto. I challenge him to read the document again. A five-year programme was set out in the manifesto. We said that we should take over the basic industries, and we did. We said that we would establish the Welfare State, and we did. We introduced a vast programme of National Insurance, National Assistance, industrial injury benefits and other welfare measures.
Indeed, the period 1945–51 was a unique occurrence in British social history. For the first time, the pledges that a party had made to the electorate were fulfilled almost to the letter. It is true that we did not go as far as we wished in housing, but do not let us forget that in 1945 we still were suffering the ravages of the war and 250,000 blitzed houses had to be repaired.
We should remember the situation that faced the Government in 1945. Sir Winston Churchill, when he was Prime Minister in 1945, told Mr. Morgenthau that this country was bankrupt and that he did not know what he was going to tell the Forces when they returned because he feared the consequences. Yet

between 1945 and 1951 there were the tremendous achievements which we on this side are justifiably proud of.
However, we are not debating what happened then. That is history. I thought that this was to be a censure debate on the present Government, but even from the Liberal benches we have had more censure of the 13 years of Conservative Government. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite examine the terms of their Motion again they will regret that they chose this subject as a Motion of censure. What we set out in our manifesto was a programme for a five-year Parliamentary period. Now the Opposition are accusing us of not having done in nine months what we said we would do in five years. That, to me, is a weak case.
I am sure that the speech made today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have made Parliamentary history. It was a complete, comprehensive and convincing case of what the Government has done. It was a brilliant speech.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: It was devastating.

Mr. Evans: I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said, as Leader of the Opposition, before the election. He said that the Labour Party would endeavour to achieve three main tasks. The first would be to restore a sense of social justice to the conduct of our national life. The second would be to restore a sense of purpose to Britain's economic and industrial life. The third would be to achieve a new greatness based on the unique contribution that we had it in our power to make to world affairs.
If we examine what the Government have so far done to deal with those tasks, we can see how the Motion deserves no consideration in the Division Lobbies. Much has been done to achieve our objectives. Three things should be remembered in considering what the Government have done. First, there is general agreement that the economic situation in October was hopeless. I would go further. Our relations with other countries were not too good and the fabric of the social services, of the Welfare State that we created between 1945 and 1951, was torn.
Secondly, of course, there was the size of the Government's majority. That has


not helped matters. Despite it, however, the Government have put through major tax reforms in the Finance Bill against filibustering tactics by hon. Members opposite.
Finally, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, we are considering what the Government have done in the first 300 of the 1,800 days that the people of Britain gave in electing the Government, for 1,800 days is about the normal life of a Parliament. If we are to make comparisons, then we can make favourable comparisons between what the Government have done in these 300 days and what was done by the Conservative Party in the 4,500 days between 1951 and 1964. Hon. Members opposite have said that the Conservatives had a majority in 1951. The fact is that although the Conservatives had more seats more people voted for the Labour Party than for them.
What has been done to restore the sense of social justice to Britain? National Insurance benefits have been improved by the largest amount since 1946, when a Labour Government were also in power. Industrial injury benefits have also been improved by the largest amount since 1946. It was the post-war Labour Government which put the legislation on the Statute Book. The maternity benefits have been improved and the payments to widows trebled. The prescription charges have been abolished. I remind the House of what happened under the three successive Conservative Governments. The first imposed a charge of 1s. per prescription; the next made it 1s. per item and the third made it 2s. per item. Again, there has been the abolition of the earnings rule for widows, improvements in the scale of National Assistance, improvements in war pensions and the travel concessions Bill to allow the aged to travel on buses at concessionary rates.
All these things could have been done by the Tory Government when they were in power. Yet today they criticise this Government because we have said that we intend radically to alter the structure of the social services in our five years of office. If we are given the opportunity to remain on this side for five years many hon. and right hon. Members opposite will regret that they spoke as they did today. Again, in the social services, we introduced the Protection from Eviction

Bill in the early months of this Parliament, and now going into the other place is the Rent Bill which will restore security to the many thousands of people who were living in dread because of the action the Tories took in their 1957 Rent Act. A great start has been made in the Government's planning to bring about the necessary social changes. Although there is more to be attained, we have, certainly in the first tasks, gone a long way to fulfil our election promises.
Before one can improve the social services, however, there must be a sound and strong economy. What has been done to restore a sense of purpose to Britain's economic and industrial life? This year's Finance Bill has set the pattern. We said that, under a Labour Government, taxation would be fair. The introduction of the Capital Gains and Corporation Taxes will ensure not only that those who work hard are taxed but that those who make large gains through speculation on the Stock Exchange will be taxed equally. In the Queen's Speech we said:
Our industries will be helped to gain the full benefits of advances in scientific research and applied technology.
Tremendous changes are taking place in the world, automation is coming, and enormous scientific advances are being made. This Government set up the Ministry of Technology to deal with these problems. These are early days yet, but, as the months go by, we shall see Britain once again leading the world in industry.
We said that there would be
central and regional plans to promote economic development, with special reference to the needs of the under-employed areas".
We have set up the Department of Economic Affairs, which has done much already to deal with the problems of those areas which suffered tremendously under Tory economic policies. In addition, we have established the regional economic planning machinery which is already doing an enormous amount to bring a new dynamism into the localities which suffered so much in recent years.
We said that we would deal more effectively with monopolies. Already, the House has had the Monopolies and Mergers Bill before it. One may say that more needs to be done in this connection, but we have, at least, made a beginning. We said also that there would


have to be a proper relationship between increases in productivity and the growth of incomes in all forms. We have established the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and this has got off to a good start.
Our economic progress should be judged not by the heights which we have so far reached but by the depths from which we have emerged. We did not start from scratch. We started from the slough of the Tory period, and we are now bringing ourselves out of it, looking forward to building on the new foundations we are creating. We have hitherto spoken of a balance of payments deficit of £800 million, but we heard from the Front Bench today that it was nearer £1,000 million. This is a serious situation from which to start. It is very pleasing to know—I hope that the people of Britain will realise it—that in nine months this deficit has already been halved. I hope that the Government will pursue their economic policies so that, in a year or two, we can see our nation's debt in the form of the balance of payments deficit finally removed. This Government are certainly taking us out of the economic mess which we inherited.
Some of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), have spoken about cutting defence expenditure. I believe that we must begin to cut our military cloth according to our economic resources. For many years we have had an imperial army to maintain an empire. But when one begins to dismantle one's empire, one should take appropriate action to dismantle one's imperial army. I am pleased to see that the Government are making a real review of our defence commitments. These commitments depend, to a very large extent, on our foreign policies, our attitude to other countries.
On the question of beginning to plan our economic policy, it is true that the party opposite is now won over to the idea of planning.

Mr. John Biffen: No, no.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is one of the very few who supports the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). One of the revelations of the recent exercise in which they have been involved has

been that the other party is making progress as far as that attitude is concerned.
We must look at what action has been taken by the Government to influence international events. First, we had the establishment of a Minister responsible for disarmament. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that on this major issue concerning all of humanity this Government is taking a lead. While all Governments throughout the world have Ministers of Defence the Labour Government have set a new example by giving someone the task of looking at the problems involved in disarmament, and seeking ways and means to remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. A lead has been given to freeing the world from the heavy burden of armaments. Something like £50,000 million is being spent by the leading industrial nations of the world on military expenditure. We are putting our £2,000 million-odd into that and we must therefore make sure that we use the raw materials of this world, and the brains and capacity of our people to divert this expenditure to real world problems. We are playing an important part as a Government in the disarmament discussions which are taking place at present.
The appointment of a Minister to the United Nations was of special importance. It established that this Government was four-square behind the belief that the United Nations is a keystone to this country's foreign policy. The principles of the United Nations must prevail if peace is to be preserved. There is no shadow of doubt that the United Nations Organisation has had far more support from this Government than from the previous Tory Government. Not only have we played a part in the United Nations world peacekeeping operations, but in the present financial crisis which faced the United Nations it was Great Britain which made the proposal for an additional contribution to the U.N.O. to meet the financial problems. It was Great Britain which made the initial contribution.
The third contribution we have made is that of a Ministry of Overseas Development with a Minister in the Cabinet. Once we have resolved the problem of disarmament the one serious problem remaining, and it is going to be a great heartache and headache for mankind in the future, will be the problem of world poverty. This Government have created a


Ministry to deal with this problem. We should consider what this Government have done in the last nine months. We have certainly made great progress in making a contribution to greater national understanding.
The Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office have a vitally important part to play in the transition and development of mankind, one wiping out the old Empire and the other creating new and stronger bonds between developing Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth has a new sense of purpose with the initiatives taken by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers took an initiative in the war in Vietnam. They want the Commonwealth to play a greater part, as it should since it represents a quarter of the world's population, in solving the world's problems.
Our greatness will not be measured by military might or by possession of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent on which the Conservative Party spent so much time in its last years of office in trying to convince the people. [An hon. Member: "And our money".] Yes, and our money. It spent so much of our resources and so much of its time in putting forward this fallacious argument.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that we still have the nuclear deterrent and that his Government, as far as I know, have done nothing to get rid of it?

Mr. Evans: There is to be a review of our defence commitments. The Government appointed a Minister with specific responsibility for disarmament who is trying to bring about a pact to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If they are given the opportunity, the Government will give a lead in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a few months longer to see what the Government do in this respect.
An hon. Member opposite spoke about the danger of democracy. We have people queuing up outside to listen to our debates. There is tremendous political interest in the country, and there is certainly a democratic awakening. Democracy

has at last even entered the thinking of the Tory Party. It now has a democratic procedure to elect a leader. At long last, with all the history of the Conservative Party, it has now decided to adopt a democratic procedure. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is not present, but he was the man who debunked the magic circle. I do not know whether he will now speak about a conspirators' circle, but that is another story.
I wish no to the new Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he will hold office for three or four decades. I hope that he will lead his party for many years to come. However, the Tory Party had better be wary, because the Liberal Party will replace it as the official Opposition if it is not careful.
The Labour team has worked very well over the last nine months. We have not had all this shuffling and reshuffling on the Front Bench. We have not had to change our leaders.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Neither have we.

Mr. Evans: The Liberal Party representative says that neither has his party, and I accept the point. Of course, the Liberal Party has not much censuring to do. The Conservative Party has been playing political musical chairs. This is, perhaps, why right hon. and hon. Members opposite want an organist to lead them.
It was Sir Winston Churchill who, speaking when the House of Commons was rebuilt, said that we shape our buildings and they in turn shape us. The same principles apply to our political policies. We shape our economic, defence and foreign policies, and we in turn are shaped by them. Our policies are now taking a new, decent and better shape under the Labour Government. Harold Wilson as Prime Minister will do for Britain in peace time what Sir Winston Churchill did for Britain in war time. He has already given the nation the leadership required. I am convinced that, given some good fortune, the tasks we have set ourselves will be accomplished and that once again, just as we fulfilled our promises in 1945, the promises which we made in 1964 will be fulfilled.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Joan L. Evans) certainly deserves well of his party. He has done his best for his Prime Minister and I hope hat his merits will be duly recognised. With all respect, however, to what was an entertaining speech, it was very much beside the point. Listening to the hon. Member's dithyrambic account of the wonders that have been worked by the Labour Government, one wonders what in the world the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been talking about this week. One wonders why every foreign capital appears to be speculating what economic disaster may be about to befall us.
If the Labour Government really were doing a; well as the hon. Member has convinced himself they are doing, how does he explain the action taken this week by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is that any evidence that the Government are recapturing confidence?

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: As has been pointed out from this side of the House, we inherited a serious economic situation. I pointed out in my speech that we had reduced the deficit of £1,000 million to almost half, a tremendous achievement. That was part of the problem that we inherited. It took the party opposite 13 years to get into that situation. We must have a little more time to get out of it.

Mr. Curran: I do not want to deal with that argument at great length, but I want to deal sufficiently with it.
During the last election, the party opposite was well aware of the trade position. The balance of payments situation did not come as a bombshell to it after the election. And yet, knowing as its members did during the election what the trade position was, they proceeded to make the promises which they made. It really will not do for the Labour Party, nine months after having got its votes by making those promises, knowing as it did when it made them that the promises could not be kept, to tell us now that it will keep those promises sometime in the future.
Every one of us here went through the last election successfully. Every one of us knows—I think that this is true on

both sides—that the Labour Party got votes in handfuls by promising to do this, that and the other, not in 10 or 20 years' time but forthwith. Nobody on the benches opposite said at the last election—I should like to be told of any Labour candidate who did say it—"If you vote for us, we will not do anything at all about cheap loans for a couple of years." That was not how Labour candidates talked, and everybody knows it. Everybody knows that they never suggested to the voters that nine months after coming into power they would have done nothing at all about interest rates or about mortgages. If only Labour candidates at the last election had told the electors what the Chancellor told the House this week, the result of the election would have been very different.
There can be no doubt whatever that the promises on which the Labour Party got votes at the last election were promises which so far have not been kept.

Mr. Victor Yates: Old-age pensions?

Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Member has made suppositions about what the electors would have done had the Labour Party told the country the state of our balance of payments. Has he made any assumptions about what the electorate would have done had Conservative candidates told the electors exactly the same story?

Mr. Curran: The hon. Member has not, apparently, listened to what I said. At the election there was no secret about the balance of payments. The trade figures were there for everyone to see. Does the hon. Member dispute that the trade figures were published at the end of September. Did he not know this? Was that how he fought the election?

Mr. Bence: I assure the hon. Member that in the constituency of East Dunbartonshire I carried around with me a report to the Minister of Power giving the adverse balance of payments. The Conservative candidate, Mr. Warren Strachan, said that I was a Jeremiah, like all Socialists, for doing so.

Mr. Curran: I do not know as much as I should like to know about the political underworld of East Dunbartonshire, but I am saying that there was no secret


about the trade figures last September. To assert that those figures were being handled, as the hon. Member apparently thinks, by M.I.5 is not really credible.
I invite the House and I invite hon. Members opposite to agree to two statements. First of all, that during the election, when the Labour Party was making these promises, it knew of the state of the balance of payments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Secondly, I am inviting the party opposite to agree with me that very large numbers of votes were obtained at the last election, particularly in marginal seats, by those two promises about cheap loans and about taking action about rates. I am inviting hon. Members of this House, on whichever side they sit, to agree that these two promises alone were worth their weight in ballot papers to the Labour Party.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member is making a quite valid point that Labour candidates were not saying that cheap loans and a system of rating reform would not come in nine months, but would he agree that the electorate probably decided that, as none of these things had happened in the last 13 years, they were prepared to take a fair gamble?

Mr. Curran: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman considers that a serious contribution to a serious argument or whether he really thinks that is the best he can do by way of interrupting me, but I regard this as a serious argument and not a matter to be dealt with by secondrate backchat.
I now turn to what is really the basis of our case against the Labour Party. At the last election I am certain that many people believed what Labour candidates said, that Labour would be able when they came into power to provide bigger and better social benefits and to spend more money on welfare than we were spending, or offering to spend, because they would run this country more efficiently. The underlying case for the Labour Party was that it could make a better job of running this capitalist country than we Tories. That was really the central assertion of the election. It is that assertion which is now being weighed and appraised by foreigners

who are displaying such a lack of confidence in our financial stability.
Is it likely, is it credible, that a party which proclaims itself to be Socialist will make a success of running a capitalist country? This question has been asked before; it was the key question when the Labour Government of 1929 collapsed. I shall make a reference to that a little later. But it seems to me that it is not reasonable to suppose that a party which does not believe in capitalism can make a success of running a capitalist society. After all, the mainspring of the capitalist system is the profit motive. That is what makes the system tick. It is not reasonable to expect a Government put into power by Socialists, to uphold or to advance a system based on the profit motive.
It is all very well for some members of the Government to say, as they have said, that they believe in a mixed economy. It is all very well for members of the Cabinet to make placatory gestures in the direction of the City. But such words and such gestures do not alter the fact that the Labour Party, by its very nature, is opposed to capitalism and is therefore not prepared to let the profit motive flourish as it should. We can see that from the speeches we have had today.
If we want this country to be more prosperous, we have to stimulate the profit motive. That is how capitalism works. It works, not by promoting egalitarianism but by making some people richer than others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Ferranti."] It works in a way that is completely hostile to the whole spirit of the Labour movement. This is the difficulty in which the Labour Party finds itself. Because it does not accept the capitalist values, because it will not stimulate the capitalist appetite, because it regards profits and profit seeking as socially undesirable, because it regards acquisitiveness as something which ought to be damped down instead of stimulated, it is not able to make a success of running this capitalist country. The Labour Party may be able to persuade some sections of the British electorate that it can do so, but it is unable to persuade foreigners of that. This is the root of our trouble.
We have heard in this debate, just as we have heard throughout this Parliament, the authentic voice of the Labour Party


displaying its hostility to acquisitiveness, its dislike of competitiveness, its dislike of profit seeking and profit making, its dislike of conspicuous expenditure and its suspicion of advertising. It is basically an anti-capitalist party.
I make no criticism of the Labour Party for being that. I recognise that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the capitalist system with its profit seeking and acquisitiveness. But, since it is the profit motive that keeps us going, to put in charge of this capitalist country a party which rejects the profit motive is like putting a man who does not believe in drink in charge of a public house. Of course he will not make a success of it. He will not try to make a success of it. He will not want to make a success of it. It is not likely that foreigners, who can look at these matters dispassionately, will believe that this anti-capitalist party will make a capitalist country flourish.

Mr. Norman Buchan: To continue the hon. Gentleman's analogy, our charge against the present capitalists is that they, like the publican, have been drinking the profits.

Mr. Curran: At the moment we have in charge of this capitalist country a party which does not believe in capitalism. Because of that it does not command foreign confidence. Everything that the Government have done since they came into power has been an attempt, so far unsuccessful, to inspire foreign confidence. That is why we have had one crisis after another.
I do not believe that it will be possible for this country to re-establish confidence abroad so long as we are governed by a Socialist Party. This is not new in our history. In 1929 a Labour Government came to office, and ran into difficulties for very much the same reasons. Finally it crashed. There was in this House then a Labour Member who watched the process. He wrote an account of it. I have been looking at that account, and I recommend hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at it too.
I am talking about John Strachey and his book, "The Coming Struggle for Power". Three chapters of this book describe the decline and fall of the 1929 Labour Government. They are well worth reading today. For this is where

we came in. Strachey makes exactly this point—that the root reason why that Government failed was that they were trying to inspire confidence in their ability to run a capitalist system although they did not believe in capitalism. He said that this job was impossible. I suggest that just as it was impossible in 1931 it will prove equally impossible in 1965.
Let me finish by quoting the final sentences from Strachey's account of that Labour Party failure. He said:
Nor will any of the leaders of the Labour Party, on whichever side of the House they may find it convenient to sit, ever falter before the expostulations of their supporters, however cogent, so long as they know that in the end the expostulator will remain a supporter. 'The war and fortune's sons', they will 'march indefatigably on', so long as life is in them, to ever new defeats, surrenders, deceptions and betrayals.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: We are debating today a Motion and an Amendment. As it stands, the Motion is one that nobody could vote against, because nobody could deny that pledges have been broken, and presumably everybody must deplore it. So the Government had to nut down an Amendment. I need read only the first part, which
congratulates the Government on the progress so far made with the implementation of its election pledges.
Let us see. The Prime Minister—I do not know where he is; he does not come here often—seemed concerned that we were censuring the Government for not achieving in 90 days what had been planned for the duration of Parliament, or four to five years. That is quite a fair point, with two exceptions. Every time the Prime Minister speaks we have to read the small print very carefully.
The first exception is that when, both in the Labour Party manifesto and, in particular, in the election address of the right hon. Gentleman who became Prime Minister as a result of that election, it has been promised that urgent action would be taken, we are entitled to ask why that promise has been broken.
Secondly, we have a very clear and very easy test, because we are now within a short time of the Summer Recess and the end of the Session, and if we study the Queen's Speech we find that it tells us not what was planned for four years, but what was planned for this Session.


Therefore, we can judge exactly the truth of the allegations that have been made and the strength of the defence that has been put up against them.
The one exception to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the income guarantee. He said:
with the exception of the early introduction of an income guarantee the key factor will be the rate at which the British economy can advance.
According to the Prime Minister's own election address,
An income guarantee will ensure that everyone has enough to live on as a right, and without recourse to National Assistance. This will come without delay.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Macleod: He will not come without delay.
A number of questions were asked of the Prime Minister, some of which I propose to go over again because he made not attempt, in an hour-long speech, to answer them. Let me take, first, the question that was put to him by my right hon. Friend—[An HON. MEMBER: "About white fish?"] No, I am not passionately interested in white fish. The Prime Minister said, "Over the period of a Parliament"—these are the words that come in; this is the small print—"I believe that we can carry out our programmes without any general increase in taxation". So the question was asked, "Are you prepared now to tell the House and to tell the country that, before the end of this Parliament, you will take something like £500 million a year less in taxation from the people of the country?", because, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to say that—and, of course, he is not; the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resign tonight if he did—that proves that the Prime Minister's undertaking at that time has been broken.
Let us look at the Queen's Speech, because that is the menu through which we have been struggling. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said this afternoon that the whole of the Queen's Speech could suitably be carried forward to the next Session. I do not think that that is true, because the Government have carried out some of the Measures that were proposed. One was that:

A Bill will be introduced to provide for the independence of the Gambia".
They have done that. They have introduced the Bill, but all the arrangements made for the independence of the Gambia took place under the old Administration, and the advance of the Commonwealth towards independence has been slowed to a stop under the Socialist Administration.
For the rest, I calculate that there are 12 domestic Bills in the Queen's Speech, which it indicated would be taken this Session, and I think that they have got either seven or eight of them—the wording of one is not very precise. As for the others, the undertaking has not been carried out. It therefore cannot be argued that the pledges of the Government have been carried out, because the major Measures that they indicated to us when they knew the economic position of the country on Tuesday, 3rd November, have not so far appeared before us.
Take steel, for example. The Prime Minister got through an hour's speech today without mentioning the word "steel", which is quite an achievement.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: rose—

Mr. Macleod: I will give way in a few minutes.
We are talking about pledges and broken pledges. The pledge was made in these specific and exact terms on 18th March of this year:
… the Government intend to table a White Paper in the near future setting out the main provisions of the Bill which we shall ask Parliament to pass into law this Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1474.]
There is a pledge broken, and the confirmation of it was given by the Leader of the House this afternoon.
Then we have the question of the Lands Commission. We were told this afternoon that at some time in the autumn there is to be a White Paper, but that is not what we were told in the Queen's Speech and that is not what we have been told all this year, over and over again.
The major Socialist Measures in the Queen's Speech have not been put through Parliament this session, I am delighted to say.

Mr. William Baxter: I have recollections of hearing the


former hon. Member for Kidderminster, Sir Gerald Nabarro, saying on numerous occasions that the Conservative Party had broken its pledge to the electors by not denationalising steel. Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to that?

Mr. Macleod: I have given a firm undertaking that if steel is nationalised we shall denationalise it, including R.T.B.
Both main Socialist Measures have gone. There is not to be leasehold enfranchisement, but that was promised. There is not to be an ombudsman, but that was promised in the Queen's Speech. We are not even to have legislation about political contributions.
I turn to the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week. In one sense this makes the debate easier, perhaps almost less critical for the Government than it would otherwise have been because there are some things in this field which, frankly, I do not want to press on the Government at this time, but in another sense that statement tears up every Election address on which the Government obtained the confidence of the people. They are all scraps of paper now, everyone of them, and I have had the grizzly task of reading dozens of them.
Last night, an hon. Member of this House who is very much respected, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), felt that he had given a pledge on behalf of the Labour Party when in opposition. He felt that he had been asked or invited to join the Government Party in dishonouring that pledge, and to his eternal credit he refused to do so. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), in a splendid speech this afternoon, punched home this breach of faith. This breach of faith alone won the party opposite the election last October. Quite enough votes turned on it with a majority of four for that to happen.
When one adds to that the other pledges which have been broken, some of which I have referred to and others I am coming to, there can be no doubt at all that that majority was obtained on a false prospectus. There can be no doubt that the Government house is built on sand, that it is built on deception.
I turn now to the background of the Chancellor's change of mind, because it

is vital to understanding the present position. I do not suppose that the whole story has emerged—of course he does not emerge—of what exactly happens to the reserve figures and other key factors of currency. It is quite right that it should not. I found the Prime Minister's comment on this flippant this afternoon. He said, "We have been working out a plan so that we can keep the expenditure within the nation's income and we were ready so we announced it".
Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "There was, of course, the Chinese gold buying spree last week." This is his explanation which he offers to the House of Commons. The facts as I understand them are these. That is what he said this afternoon—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] If he wants to object to this, he can come to the House of Commons and object to it.
I am very glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I do not know whether he heard what I said earlier, that there are matters which I genuinely do not want to press him on now. On the Third Reading of the Finance Bill the Chancellor made what my right hon. Friend described as a gratuitous comment. He was quite right. The debate was on Third Reading, on what is in the Bill. Comment outside that, although it may be valuable, is perhaps dangerous; and on this occasion it was. We have already heard the quotation. I need not give it again. The Chancellor ended by saying that he was resisting the temptation to restrain the economy further.
The Financial Times, in a very interesting article this morning, commenting on it, says that the Chancellor was tired—I am sure that he was—and that it was late. No doubt it was. That was usual of that Bill. However, the Chancellor will realise very well that this is not an excuse. When he makes remarks like that, which have an immediate effect upon sterling, upon our currency, and upon our reserves, because the attacks started the next day, whatever the state of his tiredness may be, he must weigh his words a little more carefully than that.
Two days later, speaking at Durham, the Chancellor said:
If the situation demands I shall be ready to take further short-term action which would operate immediately and could be quickly reversible.


I want to come back on those last words. It was too late by then. By that time the strains were there. The Chancellor went off to Paris. The Prime Minister made one of his tough speeches, about people getting off their backsides—I think that this was the one in this case—and here we have these reserves now.
I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that every crisis—he knows the first part of this—is a crisis of confidence. I wish he would realise that the main thing that has gone wrong in confidence is that the Government all the time have said one thing and done another. The switch from the soft message of the Thursday to the hard message of the Saturday is typical not only of the irresolution, but of the plain incompetence, of Her Majesty's Administration.
I will give just one example of the utter folly of words. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here. I know that he was talking about National Insurance. I know that he was referring to the poor and the needy at the beginning of this Parliament. He will remember very well the words I am about to quote to the House:
… the courage and determination of the Government to see that the poor and needy shall not suffer, come what may, and if the international financiers do not like it, they can lump it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1404.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. It was utterly irresponsible. It went straight away into every embassy all round the world as a message from a member of the Cabinet.
We have, then, this hopeless inability to command events running through this Administration. It finds its patron saint in the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seems to lead a sort of Walter Mitty existence. He is always governing with guts. He is ordering people off their backsides. He is knocking hell out of the Americans. He is glaring into the television cameras and telling them how tough he is today, or anyway that he will be with luck tomorrow.
All the time his military metaphors multiply and become more meaningless as they go. A year ago he was talking, of all the ludicrous ideas, of putting our heavy tanks into Cyprus. A few days

ago Anthony Howard, in his article "Battle of the Finance Bill", said that Harold Wilson told him:
It was rather like marching your troops through a long deep valley with the enemy ranged on the mountain tops on either side. We were fighting them on their own ground and in the worst possible conditions. But we won through.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Macleod: Hon. Members had better try fighting a battle like that sometime.
Then we had the famous science speech—it was a very good speech—at the party conference—
The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry.
What have we got? Instead of white heat, we have got the Minister of Technology. There is not enough white heat in the whole of the Government to boil an egghead. Perhaps I may read to the House Disraeli's words from his most famous speech:
As I sat opposite the Treasury Bench, the Ministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not very unusual on the coasts of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes.
The Prime Minister is a brilliant man, as he is the first to admit, but he is also essentially a trivial man. It is good of the right hon. Gentleman to come back to the Chamber. I was saying that he is essentially a trivial man. His horizons are bounded by the next speech or the next Parliamentary Question.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is not even a man.

Mr. Macleod: His answers get longer and longer and the content of them gets less and less. I have been quoting from his election address. If he will do me the honour of reading my speech in HANSARD tomorrow he will realise that he has come here from Huyton on what is basically a tawdry and false prospectus. I have already quoted what he said about the income guarantee. I understand that he said this afternoon—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that this is now postponed until 1967. Not this Session. Not next Session. Not even in this Parliament, because that Government will not be there.
I take up one particular point from what the right hon. Gentleman said about schools. He must have had this in mind during those Cabinet discussions which took place on the Chancellor's statement.
We will expand massively our higher, further and university education so that all who would benefit from it will have the chance.
Let us see where we are exactly in relation to what has been said and to what the Secretary of State for Education and Science will say in reply. There is not one education building programme that official Labour spokesmen did not promise in the last Parliament to increase. Schools, universities, teacher-training, technical colleges, youth clubs—all these were led to expect larger programmes even than we planned. Now the axe falls on universities, technical colleges, colleges of education and youth clubs—everything except schools. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) will remember very well that in 1961—we have heard a great deal of comment about this—there was no cut in the technical college building programme.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State some questions. I have given him notice of them. Are the Government still intending to meet the Robbins' targets for next year or the year after? If university building is now halted, it is hard to see how the extra numbers can be accommodated—and the Labour Party manifesto spoke of a massive expansion of higher education. Worse still is the decision to stop building technical colleges. If one wants proof of my description of the Prime Minister as a trivial man, how could he say this afternoon that his programmes are relevant and modernising when he is putting a stop to the building of technical colleges? What use is it to encourage the demand, as we have all been doing—both sides of the House have had a share in this—while, at the same time, cutting off the supply?
I also asked the Secretary of State whether the Government are still committed to the Henniker Heaton figure of an extra 250,000 by 1970. I hope that he will tell us exactly what the effect on these programmes will be of the announcement that the Chancellor made.
We have been dealing with broken promises and broken pledges That they

have been broken is not in dispute. They fall into two categories, those relating mainly to defence, which we are delighted the Prime Minister has broken, and those for breaking which we despise him. That is the only division. But I think that behind all the broken promises there is a much more serious weakness in the Government. I believe that the Government are day by day getting further and further out of touch with the ordinary feelings of the ordinary people. They are out of touch because they understand nothing. They have all the statistics, and maybe they have the good intentions, but they have not the ability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, they have not. It is a Government basically of the second-rate.
The Prime Minister presides over the smallest majority in our modern political history, and to help him do this he has the largest, the oldest, the most highly paid and the most incompetent Government of modern times. The Recess is only a few days away. Perhaps they will get a little breather now, and they will need it. The day of reckoning for the Government and for the Prime Minister is coming very swiftly and when it comes Socialism will not just be defeated; it will be destroyed.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I must congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) on an amusing, trivial, lighthearted and characteristic after dinner speech. It could hardly be described as a serious contribution to our political life. But no doubt he is delighted at having finally broken the "magic circle".
The right hon. Gentleman's speech hardly accorded with the kind of predictions made in the Press about the result of the election of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) as Leader of the Opposition. I read in the Daily Express that one hon. Member opposite had said that now that the right hon. Member for Bexley had been elected there would be blood on the Dispatch Box. The only blood on the Dispatch Box tonight will have come from the knuckles of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West as he was laughing at his own jokes.
Of course, the fact is that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is typical of the kind of style that we are to have in this new period of opposition under the right hon. Member for Bexley. It is a combination of synthetic rage, of amusing Spectator jokes, of a total lack of any constructive criticism, and a marked degree of irresponsibility about the country's economic situation. I am certain that this kind of speech—full of synthetic anger, as I have said, and devoid of any content—is typical of the sort of sound and fury and huffing and puffing we are to have under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Bexley. Having said that, perhaps I might be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Member for Bexley on his election.
The Motion is an excellent example. It purports to be serious and angry, but in fact it is totally frivolous. It appears to imply that the Government are under an obligation to carry out an entire five-year programme in a single year. It appears to imply that in one single year the Labour Party is to correct all the sins and omissions of the last 13 years.
It can hardly be seriously maintained that a pledge is broken if it is not carried out in the first year of what will be a five-year Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Queen's Speech."] I am coming to that. I shall deal with every one of the major points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, West.
The position was made clear in the Labour Party Manifesto. It said:
Drastic reforms are now needed in our major social services. To make them fit for the 1960s and 1970s will be costly. … This will not be achieved all at once;
There is an even more striking statement which shows that someone had a sense of what was on foot.
We do not delude ourselves that the tasks ahead will be easy to accomplish. Even now we do not know the full extent of the damage we shall have to repair after thirteen wasted years of Conservative governmnet.
Indeed, we did not know all the damage, and I shall come to the Queen's Speech, which is highly relevant to this. It is well that we should look at the facts of the situation of last autumn, when the Conservative Government—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly criticised them at

the time—were continuing and were committed to a dangerous spree which my right hon. Friend rightly said would outrun the resources available to us. Despite this fact, Tory Ministers, who must have known that the economic crisis was getting worse and worse, indulged in these promises, including, for example, in the Tory manifesto the promise to build or rebuild 300 hospitals.
Despite the fact that they must have known that the economic crisis was developing more and more seriously throughout the year, they did nothing to warn the country or their own supporters of how serious matters were. The right hon. Gentleman managed to make a speech on this topic without even referring to this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Queen's Speech."]—and this is relevant to the Queen's Speech.
It is perfectly true that right hon. Gentleman published the figures in September, but let us see what effect this had. The Tory Party Manifesto, published in September, contained not one hint of the balance of payments deficit. Speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen after the figures had been published contained no hint of how serious the situation was. The present Leader of the Opposition rebuked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6th October saying that he was giving a disgraceful distortion of the facts of the then situation. In fact he was grossly underestimating them.
In the course of saying:
It is said of me that I am in disagreement with Mr. Maudling. This is quite untrue.
I forget what that was about.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said:
I made no suggestion that there is now a crisis" in our economic situation.
Typically the best and most accurate of all came from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who in October, after the publication of the September figures, said:
There is little doubt that they are all getting a bit wild. These reckless accusations and absolutely fatuous statements show every sign that they are getting rattled".
He went on:
Only today you observed the detestable glee with which he"—


now the Prime Minister—
tried to make out that Britain was on the verge of an economic crisis. Well, is it true?" Only to the extent of the deficit of £800 million.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: rose—

Mr. Crosland: I will give way to the hon. Gentlemen later.
I could go on to quote the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who said that the nation was duped. Certainly the nation was duped, but it was duped not by my party but by the party opposite, and of course the nation is still being duped—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as a result of the completely doubled-faced attitude still being taken up by the party opposite, an attitude which reflects itself in voting for the pensions increase, but against the taxation needed to pay for it, reflected on the one hand in criticising us for not spending more and on the other hand saying that we should deflate more.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.

Sir Keith Joseph: rose—

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see not the slightest indication that the Secretary of State was giving way to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Hamilton: Nor him.

Mr. Speaker: I was exercising a personal judgment. Sir Keith Joseph.

Sir K. Joseph: rose—

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Sir A. V. Harvey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that these are very good exercises. To whom the Secretary of State was in fact giving way is of course for him to say. I was only trying to assist the House because I thought that he was giving way to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

Mr. Crosland: To clear this up; I was giving way, as I promised, to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am much obliged. In making his many quotations, will the hon. Gentleman explain one by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Gordon Walker, on 27th October, 12 days after the election, when in Washington he said that there was no question of putting up the Bank Rate?

Mr. Crosland: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman said that in Washington. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At any rate, by that time there was no attempt to hush up the seriousness of the facts of the situation, because the White Paper had already been published.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman said that this party voted against the means of raising pensions. That is completely untrue. In the annual report for 1964, issued last week by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, it is shown quite clearly that contributions were raised by £187 million for the year 1965–66 and the extra cost of the higher pension was £181 million and we voted for the increased contributions. [Interruption.] [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Crosland: Certainly I will answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that it would have been the advice of the party opposite to raise pensions to the extent that we did without a penny on any other form of taxation? [HON. MEMBERS: "You said that."] I am perfectly well aware of that. I do not withdraw in the slightest degree. There is no right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, certainly not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who would have suggested that, with the economy very heavily loaded, we should have increased pensions without an increase in taxation.
The basic fact of the matter is that we were presented with a deficit of £800 million. Of course this is an unpalatable fact, but it is the centre of the whole situation in which we find ourselves. There is no method known to man of curing a deficit of this size painlessly. The country is spending £800 million more than it is earning. Somehow, somewhere, we have to spend £800 million less, and that explains the higher taxes, the higher rates of interest, the higher prices and the fact that certain social reforms,


to which we are committed and which we shall carry out, have now had to be postponed.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Crosland: Against this extremely unfavourable situation, the proportion of our manifesto, and the proportion of things in the Queen's Speech, which is not necessarily a commitment to do things in a single Session, which have been achieved is remarkable, to put it mildly. I would like to mention some of the things which we have done, and to consider whether a Tory Government in those circumstances would have done them.
First of all, let us take the subject that has been discussed, the matter of social security. There has been the largest increase in old-age pension since 1946, a corresponding increase in sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, industrial injuries and war pensions. There has been the abolition of the earnings rule for widows. Would the party opposite have done these things in this situation? Prescription charges have been abolished; there has been control of rents and security of tenure. Would the party opposite have done that? They have moved completely in the reverse direction for 13 years.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) spoke of education. There is the national policy for abolishing the 11-plus and establishing a comprehensive system, the 13 per cent. salary rise for teachers, which carries out what we said in the Queen's Speech and what we said in our election manifesto. As far as higher and further education is concerned, to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, we will stick to the Robbins and the Henniker Heaton targets and are confident, despite the Chancellor's statement, of achieving them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly we are.

Sir Edward Boyle: Arising directly out of the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, can he say whether the University Grants Committee agrees that the Robbins target for 1967 will still be achieved, despite the six months' postponement of university building starts?

Mr. Crosland: For right hon. and hon. Members opposite to start talking about university starts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to have very little desire to hear an answer. It is our view that these targets, even with the cuts which have taken place, will be achieved in the particular years for which they were set. We are now in discussion with the University Grants Committee as to how this can be done.
Is it seriously suggested that in the last nine months the party opposite would have carried out any of these reforms in social security, health, housing and education? The simple answer is that it would have done none of them. It would have used the economic crisis as an excuse for carrying out none of these social reforms.
I turn to another sphere which links up with social reform, and that is the question of taxation—and I am still on the pledges which we made and which we have carried out. Another of our pledges was that we would make the tax system juster and fairer than it is now. This pledge also we have carried out by introducing the Capital Gains Tax, which hon. Members opposite certainly would not have done, and by introducing the Corporation Tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "And putting 6d. on Income Tax."] Yes, in order to pay for the increase in pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] All the things which I have mentioned, and many others which the Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon, are the fulfilment of pledges made in the Labour Party's manifesto. They are the fulfilment—

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: On a point of order. For purposes of greater accuracy, would it be in order for me to ask whether the Queen's Speech might be read again?

Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order. It is quite important that hon. Members should not rise on a point of order if it is not one.

Mr. Crosland: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be interested to read the Conservative Party's manifesto of 1951, which promised the restoration of the university seats, which it never carried out in 13 years.
I want to pass to the way in which the Labour Government, in the light of


our manifesto, have dealt with the crisis which we inherited from the previous Government. I want to point out one basic difference. Whereas the previous Government had one method, and one method only, of dealing with the balance of payments crisis, namely, blind general deflation, this Government have adopted a far more selective, discriminating attitude.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Crosland: On regional policy, which should interest the hon. Gentleman, we have a real policy instead of the half-baked one which the Leader of the Opposition had in government. On prices and incomes—so much sneered at by hon. Members opposite—we are far nearer achieving a policy, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made it clear last night how seriously the Government took it. In labour mobility and redundancy payments we have a far more direct policy than the previous Government had. There has been control over office development and a serious attempt through the "Little Neddies" to increase the efficiency of British industry.
In every one of these ways the Government have shown that they have an alternative to the 1961 policy of general deflation. If anyone thinks that there is no difference between the reaction to a crisis of a Conservative Government and a Labour Government, does he seriously think that if these measures had been announced by a Conservative Chancellor they would have excluded schools, hospitals and housing? Of course, they would have done no such thing. They would have done what they did in 1961: attack the nurses and teachers first.

Sir Douglas Glover: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There is every indication that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way to one hon. Member, still less to two hon. Members.

Mr. Hirst: He dare not.

Mr. Crosland: I have given way a great deal more than the right hon. Member for Enfield, West did. That is the difference between our policies in the economic field and those of the Conservatives.

[Interruption.] What is the fuss about the Queen's Speech? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] Hon. Members opposite need not worry about steel. I know how keen the party opposite is on steel. There is no change in the Government's policy on steel.
The party opposite will find that our policy comes forward in due time. The party opposite will also find that every one of the few items in the Queen's Speech which was not carried through in this Session of Parliament will come in the next Session of Parliament. [Interruption.] There will be a White Paper on land shortly and a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. There is not one item in the Queen's Speech which has not been introduced this year which hon. Members will not have the pleasure of looking forward to in the next Session of Parliament. So they need have no worry about the Queen's Speech. In the course of this Parliament, everything that was mentioned in our manifesto or the Queen's Speech will be brought forward and put into law.
I turn to one other direction in which this party has carried out its election pledges and where those pledges differ markedly from the policies of the Tory Government. One of the worst indictments of the Tory Government—

Mr. Hirst: Of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Crosland: —over 13 long years was the appalling desecration which they allowed of the British coastline and countryside. [Interruption.] That reaction reflects a completely different sense of values. One of the things that the Government propose to do, and which, again, was mentioned in the manifesto, is by a much tougher and more rigorous town and country planning policy to do something to save those bits of Britain which the previous Government allowed to be desecrated.
I am delighted that even though hon. Members opposite do not care—although some of them, I happen to know, do care—one of the Chancellor's first acts, despite our balance of payments difficulty, was to make a large contribution to Enterprise Neptune to save the British coastline. [Interruption.] I have a particular interest in white fish. White fish was the one single constructive intervention which


I heard from the other side. [Interruption.] I quite agree that if the Labour Party's manifesto were not carried out on the subject of white fish then I would regard that a No. 1 resigning issue as far as I am concerned.
I do not think that this point about the British countryside is a frivolous one. I think that there are many issues outside the strictly economic field where reform is very urgently needed, and this Government are carrying it out, and though right hon. and hon. Members opposite may laugh I am delighted that this Government are giving far greater encouragement to the arts than ever was given by the previous Government.
I am delighted at the fact—and this alone justifies our having a Labour Government—that we have been able to help through the Bill for the abolition of hanging. The Bill is not through yet, but if it goes through with the support of the great majority of Labour Members of Parliament then it will have been a remarkable achievement, in itself justifying a Labour Government, and I may say that it is a Bill which had no help and assistance from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He may be famous for his strong leadership, but on the question of the abolition of hanging he gave no kind of leadership at all.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Only three more minutes of this.

Mr. Crosland: So I would claim that in nine short months, and despite the crisis which we inherited from the previous Government—and it is no good having this debate at all except against the background of the deficit which we did inherit—I claim despite the short time this Government have been in, and against

the background of the economic crisis, this Government have carried through a remarkable achievement of social reform—

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Crosland: —and I repeat that if the hon. Gentleman is unhappy, everything in the Queen's Speech he will see achieved in due time. Our view on this side of the House is that the achievement which the Labour Government have accomplished is an achievement which any Government can rightly be proud of in these circumstances. It is a remarkable achievement which would not have been approached in the slightest by the Tories if they had got in on 15th October last year. And it is an achievement which we shall be proud to vote for in the Lobbies tonight.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is much to choose on such a ritual occasion between either side of the House, except that an hon. Member, having been called, should be allowed to be heard.

Mr. McMaster: I just wanted to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why right hon. Gentlemen opposite have used a critical balance of payments situation as an excuse to cancel so many excellent aircraft projects and to order from the United States?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 306.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Berkeley, Humphry
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Biffen, John
Bryan, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bingham, R. M.
Buck, Antony


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bullus, Sir Eric


Astor, John
Black, Sir Cyril
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Blaker, Peter
Buxton, Ronald


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Campbell, Gordon


Baker, W. H. K.
Box, Donald
Carlisle, Mark


Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cary, Sir Robert


Barlow, Sir John
Braine, Bernard
Channon, H. P. G.


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Chataway, Christopher


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chichester-Clark, R.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)




Cole, Norman
Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, John


Cooper, A E.
Hornby, Richard
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Corfield, F. V.
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Pounder, Rafton


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Crawley, Aidan
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crowder, F. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Curran, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Currie, G. B. H.
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Dean, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kilfedder, James A.
Roots, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lagden, Godfrey
Sharples, Richard


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Shepherd, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'd field)
Speir, Sir Rupert


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Longbottom, Charles
Stodart, Anthony


Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Summers, Sir Spencer


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Talbot, John E.


Gammans, Lady
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Teeling, Sir William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maddan, Martin (Hove)
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhart, Philip
Mathew, Robert
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gower, Raymond
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David
Wall, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Webster, David


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, William


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hawkins, Paul
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wise, A. R.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Higgins, Terence L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Younger, Hn. George


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peel, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Alldritt, Walter
Bacon, Miss Alice


Albu, Austen
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bagler, Gordon A. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Barnett, Joel







Baxter, William
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beaney, Alan
Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, [...]change)
Mason, Roy


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maxwell, Robert


Bessell, Peter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mayhew, Christopher


Binns, John
Hale, Leslie
Mellish, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boardman, H.
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Monslow, Walter


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. w.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Albert


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Neal, Harold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Norwood, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, H. E.
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, Walter


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Paget, R. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jackson, Colin
Parker, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Darling, George
Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull. W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Redhead, Edward


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Donnelly, Desmond
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


English, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rose, Paul B.


Ennals, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ensor, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rowland, Christopher


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. w.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Floud, Bernard
McCann, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Ford, Ben
McInnes, James
Small, William


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julian


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Solomons, Henry


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrow, A.
McLeavy, Frank
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stonehouse, John







Stones, William
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Swain, Thomas
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Swingler, Stephen
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Symonds, J. B.
Wallace, George
Winterbottom, R. E.


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, Tudor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William
Zilliacus, K.


Thornton, Ernest
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George



Thorpe, Jeremy
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. George Rogers.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 294.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Albu, Austen
Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Alldritt, Walter
Dunn, James A.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dunnett, Jack
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin


Barnett, Joel
Ennals, David
Janner, Sir Barnett


Baxter, William
Ensor, David
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Binns, John
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Floud, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boardman, H.
Foley, Maurice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Boston, Terence
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Ford, Ben
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Boyden, James
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lawson, George


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
Ledger, Ron


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Garrett, W. E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Garrow, A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Gregory, Arnold
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchanan, Richard
Grey, Charles
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (ROther Valley)
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Loughlin, Charles


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carmichael, Neil
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hale, Leslie
McCann, J.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacColl, James


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacDermot, Niall


Conlan, Bernard
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hannan, William
McInnes, James


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Harper, Joseph
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Roy
McLeavy, Frank


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hazell, Bert
MacMillan, Malcolm


Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Dalyell, Tam
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Darling, George
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mapp, Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Marsh, Richard


Davies, Itor (Gower)
Holman, Percy
Mason, Roy


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Maxwell, Robert


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mayhew, Christopher


Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Mellish, Robert


Dell, Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, J. J.


Dempsey, James
Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hoy, James
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dodds, Norman
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)




Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Monslow, Walter
Reynolds, C. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Richard, Ivor
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, Ernest


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Murray, Albert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Neal, Harold
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)
Tuck, Raphael


Newens, Stan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rose, Paul B.
Varley, Eric G.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin


Norwood, Christopher
Rowland, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wallace, George


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, Tudor


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Weitzman, David


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, John (Deptford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Owen, Will
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Padley, Walter
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Skeffington, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Palmer, Arthur
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pargiter, G. A.
Snow, Julian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Solomons, Henry
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Parker, John
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pavitt, Laurence
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, John
Woof, Robert


Perry, Ernest G.
Stones, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Popplewell, Ernest
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Prentice, R. E.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Zilliacus, K.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Probert, Arthur
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Swingler, Stephen
Mr. Sydney Irying and


Randall, Harry
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. George Rogers.


Redhead, Edward
Taverne, Dick





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Errington, Sir Eris


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buxton, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Gordon
Farr, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Fell, Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Astor, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Christopher
Foster, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, W. H. K.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Balniel, Lord
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cole, Norman
Gammans, Lady


Barlow, Sir John
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward


Batsford, Brian
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Berkeley, Humphry
Costain, A. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard


Bessell, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gather, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Biffen, John
Crawley, Aidan
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Goodhew, Victor


Bingham, R. M.
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Grant, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Curran, Charles
Grant-Ferris, R.


Blaker, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Box, Donald
Dance, James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Braine, Bernard
Dean, Paul
Gurden, Harold


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Doughty, Charles
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bruce-Gardyne J.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bryan, Paul
Eden, Sir John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Hawkins, Paul







Hay, John
Maddan, Martin (Hove)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Heald, Rt. Hn, Sir Lionel
Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maitland, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Hendry, Forbes
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shepherd, William


Higgins, Terence L.
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Hiley, Joseph
Mathew, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maude, Angus
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speir, Sir Rupert


Hooson, H. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stainton, Keith


Hopkins, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Hordern, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hornby, Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stodart, Anthony


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Miscampbell, Norman
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Mitchell, David
Studholme, Sir Henry


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Munro, Hector
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hunt, John (Bromley)
More, Jasper
Talbot, John E.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Iremonger, T. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Teeling, Sir William


Jennings, J. C.
Heave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Jopling, Michael
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kilfedder, James A.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kimball, Marcus
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, John
Welder, David (High Peak)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lambton, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wall, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton
Walters, Dennis


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Litchfield, Capt. John
Prior, J. M. L.
Webster, David


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, William


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Longbottom, Charles
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Loveys, Walter H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wise, A. R.


Lubbock, Eric
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn, Richard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Woodnutt, Mark


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hn. George


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Roots, William



McMaster, Stanley
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, this House congratulates the Government on the progress so far made with the implementation of its election pledges, expresses its confidence that, contrary to the precedent of the past 13 years, the Government will in succeeding Sessions carry out in full the pledges made to the nation in its election manifesto, and regrets that throughout this present Session Her Majesty's Opposition have failed to put forward any evidence of alternative policies to enable the nation to rid itself

of the economic difficulties bequeathed by the outgoing Government.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. George Rogers.]

Orders of the Day — REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 8.—(REGISTRATION OFFICES.)

10.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I beg to move in Clause 8, page 7, line 15, to leave out "or strong box" and to insert ", safe or cabinet".
This is an Amendment which we overlooked in Committee. It is consequential upon a Government Amendment to subsection (1) of the Clause which was completely accepted by the Committee. I hope that the Amendment will now be accepted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION OF PARTICULARS OF BIRTH.)

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I beg to move, in Clause 14, page 9, line 23, to leave out from "mother" to the end of line 25 and to insert:

(i) any relative of either parent of the child, being a relative who has knowledge of the birth;
(ii) the occupier of the premises in which the child was, to the knowledge of that occupier born;
(iii) any person present at the birth;
(iv) any person having charge of the child.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): It is proposed that we take with this Amendment the other Amendment to Clause 14, in page 9, line 34, to leave out subsection (2).

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Lady will recall that in Committee an Amendment not dissimilar from this was moved and discussed, and I think it fair to say that on that occasion, in our attempt to do what we genuinely thought, and still think, to be right for the improvement of the drafting, we took a step which went a little too far, altering paragraph (a) of subsection (2) by suggesting that the words "being a relative" should be left out.
This cast doubts, as the hon. Lady explained, on whether it was a relative who had knowledge of the birth or a parent which had knowledge of the birth. Accordingly, we have now stuck to the wording of the whole of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (2) and merely changed their position in the Clause, thereby making, we think, the Clause easier to read and understand.
We have, therefore, I think, gone at least halfway to meet the objections to the Amendment which were raised by the hon. Lady in Committee. So I hope that, following the example which both sides set with great success in Committee, she will be able to come towards us and accept the Amendment. Before she makes it clear, let me admit that we have not gone the whole way to meet the objections which she pointed out in Committee, because it is true that as a result of our Amendment "qualified" disappears from line 24 and so does the part of subsection (2) which states who, other than the parents, would be qualified.
However, although I am not a lawyer, and would not pretend to be well versed in the expertise of drafting, I should have thought that if it is laid down, as it is in the Clause, who has the duty to register a birth, be it a parent or, in the inability of the parent, any relative or the occupier of the premises or any person present at the birth or any person in charge of the child—it is upon these in turn that the duty is laid—it ought to go without saying that anyone who has this duty must automatically be qualified to do it.
On both sides, in Committee, on many occasions we have tried to make the Bill a more understandable one. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) uttered some words of praise and encouragement for this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) certainly did not pour cold water on the idea. Accordingly, although we failed in Committee, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to put the seal on the harmony which has characterised the passage of the Bill and accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Hart: Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to extend the spirit of harmony which has pervaded


the proceedings on the Bill by accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I am sorry that I cannot, but I will tell him why I cannot, and perhaps he will understand that it is in no spirit of discord whatever but merely because the Bill must be a perfect Bill.
On the one hand, this matter is, I freely admit, entirely one of taste and presentation. We think that the words in the Bill are, on the whole, slightly better, partly because they are more easily understood and more readable and partly because they place proper emphasis on the importance of the father and mother as primary informants. But this is not the main reason.
The main reason is that the Amendments could not stand on their own without two other Amendments which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not tabled. One of them would have been an Amendment in line 33 because the reference there to "those persons" is related back to subsection (1,b). We should have to modify that to enable his Amendments to carry through. Secondly, in Clause 56, we would have to amend the definition of "qualified informant".
Quite apart, therefore, from the question of balance of judgment as to which is the better way of doing it, unfortunately the hon. Gentleman has not put down the other two Amendments needed to make these two carry through the Bill. I am extremely sorry that I must resist his Amendments, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see my motives in doing so.

Mr. Stodart: I think that I may say, as on many other occasions, that the hon. Lady's explanation, put forward extremely straightforwardly, seems to be perfectly adequate. I regret my lack of diligence in not noticing the other two cases where amendment would have been necessary. In view of this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37.—(SEARCH OF INDEXES KEPT BY REGISTRARS.)

Mr. William Hannan: I beg to move in Clause 37, page 22, line 6, after "payment", to insert "to him".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the following three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan), which are in similar terms.

Mr. Hannan: In Committee, particularly on Clause 37, I raised the point that the phrasing here did not make quite clear on whose responsibility and to whom and by whom such fees for searches should be paid. These Amendments emphasise that the fees are to be paid to the registrar and not by him, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept them.

Mrs. Hart: I am glad to accept these Amendments because they make for greater clarity. We discussed the point in Committee and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for enabling us to make the Bill a little bit better.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38.—(SEARCH OF INDEXES KEPT BY REGISTRAR GENERAL.)

Amendments made: In Clause 38, page 22, line 21, after "payment", insert "to him".

In line 30, after "payment", insert "to him".—[Mr. Hannan.]

Clause 47.—(SEARCH OF PAROCHIAL REGISTERS, ETC., AND PROVISION OF EXTRACTS THEREFROM.)

Amendment made: In Clause 47, page 28, line 8, after "payment", insert "to him".—[Mr. Hannan.]

10.40 p.m.

Mrs. Hart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In the spirit of harmony that has prevailed throughout the course of this Bill we could have had the Third Reading "on the nod", but its merits and importance warrant a few words. I am extremely glad to be able to do so at this stage.
This is a Bill which can be considered as a small but very important piece of law reform, and I pay tribute to hon. Members opposite, because both sides, in Committee and on Report, have taken an almost equal share. It has been a somewhat technical Bill, but in Committee we brought out its real purpose and its wider objectives. I do not know whether you


are aware, Dr. King, that in the Scottish Standing Committee we may have achieved a record by dealing with a Bill which had 59 Clauses in two sittings, certainly an accomplishment of which both sides of the House can be proud.
The primary object of the Bill is the creation of a long-term series of records of births, deaths and marriages as accurate and as complete as possible and made in as up to date a way as possible. The whole act of registration, dealing as it does with those fundamental occasions in the lives of families, brings up a number of personal problems. We dealt with these fully in Committee, and I believe that our discussions were very useful. We fully considered the service which registration is intended to perform to individuals and organisations and especially to our descendants. Their rights in a number of respects may depend on how accurately and effectively we compile a register of births, deaths and marriages.
The register will fulfil another function in which increasingly more and more of us are becoming interested, that of supplying the vital statistics on which so much of our planning depends. Much medical and social research nowadays depends on how accurately we record the information which, under the Bill, will be recorded.
There are one or two matters which I should like to mention before we leave the Bill and one of them concerns the difficult question which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) raised in Committee—over the Border registration of births and deaths. I assured him in Committee that the Registrar General in Scotland would have discussions with the Registrar General of England and Wales on possible modifications and improvements which we might be able to make to meet some of the difficulties which he mentioned. These discussions will go on. I do not know how long they will take, but we shall certainly pursue this matter as vigorously as we can.
The hon. Member also asked what would happen when someone died and his body had to go one way or the other over the Border. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may not have been in Committee when we discussed this matter, but I can assure them that the hon. Member for Dumfries wrung our hearts with his

description of the personal problems which could flow from this situation. The Registrar General in Scotland is discussing with the Registrar General for England and Wales the procedures for when a body is removed across the Border, and we shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know when our discussions have finished.
A Departmental Committee on death certification has been set up in England and its terms of reference include reviewing, among other things, the law and practice relating to the issue of medical certificates for the disposal of dead bodies. Although this Committee is concerned with the procedure in England and Wales, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that the issue which he raised and which we discussed so fully has seemed to it to be relevant and we have reported it to the secretary so that these matters can be considered in the English context.
In Committee, doubts were expressed about the highly controversial use of "etcetera" in the Bill. Parliamentarians tend to be a little unhappy when we use slightly unorthodox words like "etcetera", because we may meet with some difficulty. We were well aware of the difficulty of registrars throughout Scotland and that they wanted to preserve the traditional usage of the initials R.C.E. for all the corrections to the registers, but, at the same time, we had to find a word which would cover not only corrections, but additions to the register, following on new events in a person's life.
In view of the doubts, I went into the matter very carefully and spent an hour or two with the Oxford English Dictionary and came up with a large number of words which might commend themselves to the Registrar General. One or two are slightly unusual, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the House is familiar with the words—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the words are not in the Bill, no matter how interesting they are, they must not be spoken of on Third Reading.

Mrs. Hart: That is a great pity. I had hoped to educate the House in one or two interesting words which had some unusual secondary meanings. However, I can go on to say that, despite their secondary meanings, these words do not


find favour with those who know, in detail, the implications that they have to have in the Bill. What I can assure the House of is that very important historical precedents have been found for the use of the words "et cetera" in Parliamentary legislation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who was so concerned about this is now reassured. He has written to tell me he is satisfied, in view of our explanation, that the words "et cetera" can be used. It has been very frequently used in the Titles of Bills and other legislation. We need not be afraid that we are creating an undesirable precedent in the usage of the English language.
I conclude by saying how grateful I am to the Opposition for making the Bill such a co-operative venture. I think that between us we have carried out very quickly and effectively, an important, if undramatic, piece of law reform.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: As the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary said, some interesting revelations came about during the course of the progress of the Bill. The first, as she has said, and I think that I detected a trace of incredulity on your face, Dr. King—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was too gallant to correct the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair in the proper way.

Mr. Stodart: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought I noticed an expression of incredulity on your face on hearing of the speed of the Scottish Standing Committee in getting through its work. As the hon. Lady said, we discovered, as a result of searches done by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the extraordinary fact that although dead bodies can be transported anywhere about Scotland and England, they may not cross the Border with England more than once, although great difficulties can arise over deaths and cremations in the Border area.
I think that it is worth putting on record the fact that the registration system in Scotland, even before the Bill was introduced, had been regarded as the best system in the world. Many people from

other nations have expressed this opinion. Even the best can be improved, however, and that is what we have sought to do in the course of our discussions.
I would like to make several points which, I think, are of value as a result of the Bill. First, it has been urgently required that the pressing accommodation problems of the Registrar General in Edinburgh should be dealt with. Before the Bill he had no powers to keep registers outside the Register House, or to use any modern system of filing. I hope that the obtaining of this extra accommodation will not suffer any delay as a result of the cuts about which we have read.
It depressed me to read in The Scotsman, two days ago, that one building which was to suffer was the new record office in St. George's Church, West.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the interest of the public will be served by the introduction of the system of the ability to register births and deaths in one of two places. I think that this will be of particular benefit to those who live in the Highland areas.
Thirdly, the position of registrars has, without doubt, been improved as a result of our discussions because the Registrar General will now be consulted about the salaries or remunerations of district registrars, whereas before this was entirely a matter for the local authority. This will go a long way towards doing something which, I think, will be of help to district registrars because they have been worrying about this matter, as we know from the correspondence we have had on the subject. It will secure some consistency of salaries in the different parts of the country.
Fourthly, although there has been room for argument, and there probably still is, about the abbreviated birth certificate, if it came to one or the other and not to both, I would be most firmly in favour of the abbreviated one. This will give much relief from embarrassment to many people.
I wish to return the kind words voiced by the hon. Lady. My hon. Friends and I did our best to co-operate. We received great "come hither" from her and her hon. Friends, as a result of which we now have a better Bill than when it was first drafted.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: As the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary has taken so much trouble over the problem of the Border areas, I wish to put on record my appreciation for her work and the speed at which these two Committees have gone into action. When I go home tonight I will have the happy thought that my children will not have so much trouble disposing of me at the end of my days.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY

10.52 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1263), dated 11th June, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be annulled.
There are several points which I wish to make at the outset. This is the third occasion on which this Prayer has been on the Order Paper. On previous occasions it has been accompanied by two others, but because of the volume of Government business going through Parliament on each of the previous occasions no time has been found to debate them. I am glad that now we have at least a few minutes in which to discuss this matter. Tonight, we have only the one levy Order before us.
I should perhaps point out, although I am sure that this is well known to all hon. Members, that it is parliamentary custom that on many occasions—indeed, the majority—when a Prayer is moved there is no intention, in moving it, to seek to annul the Order but that this is the only way by which an order of a negative nature can come before the House for consideration.
I would not have thought it necessary to make that observation had it not been for some comments made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion in the House. I am glad that he is in his place tonight and I hope that he will take this opportunity of putting his remarks in, shall I say, a somewhat

different perspective and, I hope, of withdrawing some of the implication of what he said on that occasion. I was extremely annoyed when I learned of his remarks and I reacted to them fairly strongly at the time.
I recognise that in the circumstances in which he was speaking there was a good deal of pressure—as there would be on a Minister winding up a stormy debate—so one can make allowances for that. Even making those allowances, I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that some of the things he said were misleading to a considerable degree. I hope that he will be able to put them in better perspective tonight.
On 14th July, in winding up the debate—I am seeking to put this as moderately as I can—the hon. Gentleman first made a complete misstatement, and I think he agrees with me that it was so. He said:
Under the Industrial Training Act, in the first year alone the Government will spend a sum not far short of £100 million.
That was completely wrong and, presumably—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a personal difference to a certain extent, but he must get back to the Order now.

Mr. Godber: I should not dream of raising the matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were it not that the hon. Gentleman, as I shall seek to show—and I have to quote more of what he said to make my point—made comments about our Prayers which call for discussion. If you will allow me to go a little further, I will seek to show that that is so. I merely say on this point that I subsequently put a Question to the Minister, when it was shown that the amount spent was much smaller, less than £2 million in the first two years.
In the hon. Gentleman's next quotation, in response to an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who was leading for the Opposition, he said:
Perhaps he will say why his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has tabled Prayers to annul the Orders that we have made to put the Act into effect. It makes one wonder what was


the intention behind the Act. It was a sort of enabling Act, by which one could do a great deal, or do very little. We decided to do something about it. The Orders were published, and at the first possible opportunity the Shadow Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Grantham, tabled Prayers to annul the three Orders that were made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 630–1.]
That is my reason for raising the point and I hope you will agree that it is right that I should do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because of my earlier point that this is a perfectly normal procedure which, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, is used in the House. It is used regularly by Opposition parties with no intention whatever of seeking to annul.
My purpose in regard to the Orders was quite straightforward. These were almost the first levy Orders under the Industrial Training Act, a Measure which I was responsible for piloting through the House. I had no intention of holding up the operation of the Act and I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thought I had. He was seeking to make a party point which was completely unfair. I understand that he was under great pressure because of the strain of the debate, but, even so, I hope that he will take the opportunity tonight completely to withdraw any suggestion that I did not wholly support the Act, because all those concerned with the operation of industrial training know well from my record at the Ministry and subsequently that I am desperately keen to see the Act succeed and to see the boards go forward to success.
My purpose in tabling the Prayers was to enable the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to explain—I thought that he would be glad to do so—some of the issues in regard to this entirely new legislation, which we have only just had before us. Four of these boards were set up when we were in office and we have now had the levy Orders for those four. The one which we are considering tonight is that for engineering. This was the one on which I thought that it would be of particular advantage for the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to give explanations, because the levy in this Order was substantially higher than in any of the others.
That is a point on which there has been criticism, and, possibly, it is this which has led to the misunderstanding. I have never criticised it. I have always said that all levies would have to be at a high rate, because they would "bite" only if they were at a high rate. The whole purpose of the levy is to impose it upon the whole industry and to pay back grant to those who are giving sufficient training.
Therefore, to the extent that the levy is a high one, pressure is increased on those who are not training to do so. Although this levy is a high one I was merely seeking to know why there is this wide discrepancy between the levels of levy between the different boards. That is why I put down the Prayers originally on the three different Orders. In this case, it is 2½ per cent. of the total pay received.
From the Report of the Engineering Training Board, which came out today, I see that the Board decided to start its levy at a level which would bring in sufficient money to cover the total current costs of training in the industry. It rejected the idea of starting with a small levy, but decided to begin as it meant to continue, with a levy to embrace the whole range of training. This may be the explanation which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wishes to give, but it does seem to be perhaps a different attitude from that of the other Boards, and while one obviously would not expect complete unanimity it is perhaps surprising that there is this degree of discrepancy.
There is this difficulty in this case, that there would be an interflow between the Engineering Board and the Iron and Steel Board. There is a joint committee dealing with the affairs of the foundry industry. It is a joint committee between the Engineering Board and the Iron and Steel Board. It is, therefore, a somewhat complicated matter. As I was responsible for setting up that committee I realise, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does, the differences between those industries, and the fact that it was impossible to fit the foundry industry neatly into one or the other, but, because of this, the discrepancy between the rate of levy in the engineering industry and in the iron and steel industry becomes very important, because we have some foundry


operators who are levied under the iron and steel rate and some under the engineering rate.
I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any intention to try through the operation of this joint committee to even out the levy in the foundry industry between the two, in the one case a 2½ per cent. levy and in the other case a per head levy of, I think it is, £7 per annum. If it were on a per capita basis in the engineering industry, the levy would come out, I imagine, nearer £20 rather than £7. So there is a big difference between them. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us whether the joint committee will be able to smooth out the difference, because I think that there is some feeling in the foundry industry that some people are at a disadvantage compared with others if they come within the orbit of the Engineering Board as opposed to the Iron and Steel Board. This is one other reason why I particularly wanted an opportunity of raising this matter.
One or two of my hon. Friends want to speak, I believe. I certainly want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to have an opportunity to clear up this matter to which I have referred, so I do not want to go into too great detail about it, but I hope that he will be able to tell us something about this, and something more about the speed at which things are going forward, because an implication of his remarks that night was that we were hanging back and that he and his colleagues were rushing forward. In fact, the very reverse is the case. If he cares to study the Reports of the Engineering Training Board and the other boards we set up when we were in power he will find that, in most cases, with the advice and guidance of the then Government they anticipated being set up and substantially in advance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is going wide now of the Motion. He may discuss only the levy and things appertaining to the levy.

Mr. Godber: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought that I was perhaps going just a trifle wide, but, of course, the Engineering Board's Report includes a reference to the levy—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but the fact that the Report mentions certain things does not mean that everything in the Report can be discussed in this debate.

Mr. Godber: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this as in all things.
Having made my point, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have noted it and be, if not a sadder, yet a wiser man in regard to this matter in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least adopt a fairer approach towards our attitude to these matters, and will acknowledge that we have been at least as keen as he has about this levy, and about other matters, too.
I shall not be able to quote from this other paper which I have here, but there are other misleading factors which emanate from a source which the hon. Gentleman may recognise. As I cannot quote from this paper, which the hon. Gentleman may have seen, I suggest that he studies it. It has been suggested that we were not keen on this, and I hope, therefore, that what I have said will disabuse people's minds of that idea.
So far as the levy Order goes, we acknowledge that in the engineering industry it is very important that high standards of training are achieved throughout the industry. We recognise that some aspects of this industry in particular have very heavy training costs. We do not dispute that that is so. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more about this, to explain, if he will, the difference in rates between this and the iron and steel levy, because of the interplay between these two. If he can tell us anything about the way in which these are going forward, without, of course, going outside the bounds of order, I hope that he will do so, because there is genuine interest in the operation of this Act in regard to the Board and this levy, and in regard to the other boards as well.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: My intervention will be very brief. I must declare an interest as a director of the Charles Churchill group of companies, and I shall be expressing the view of the Machine Tool Trade Association.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has made it clear that he does not intend to force this Prayer to a Division, because the machine tool industry is well pleased not only with the Industrial Training Act of last year, which was piloted through this House by my right hon. Friend, but also with the Industrial Training Levy Order, which became effective on 30th June, 1965.
This levy of 2·5 per cent. of the total emoluments paid by the engineering industry is considered by the machine tool industry to be a fair assessment of the average amount that has been spent annually by the engineering industry on training schemes. It is true that some sections of the industry will have spent far less than 2·5 per cent. and that some of them will have spent considerably more.
I am rather pleased that the Minister of Technology is present this evening so that I can make this point, because the machine tool industry has been much maligned in this Parliament. The amount spent annually by the machine tool industry is far more than 2·5 per cent. of the wages that are paid annually, and for that reason it should receive considerably more in grants than it will pay in levy. It is only right that those sections of the industry which in the past have spent more on training schemes should get the greatest benefit now from any money that is to come from the Exchequer.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to give the House two assurances. First, will he assure the House that the funds created by the levy will not degenerate into another Road Fund—that they will not be raided to refresh other Treasury expenditure, but will all be used for the purpose for which it is now stated they will be used? Secondly, will he assure the House that the total grant paid to all industries—not just to the engineering industry—will exceed the total levy that is drawn from those industries; in other words, that the Treasury will make a contribution and industry will benefit to a greater extent than the actual levy that is collected?

11.10 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I welcome the Order, but I have a few

specific points which I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with. First, can he state what will be the total cost of the levy? Presumably he has an estimate of the figure—namely, 2½ per cent. of the total emoluments of those in the engineering industry. Can he give us some idea what is the total income?
Secondly, is it intended to introduce the provisions under Section 5 of the 1964 Act, whereby the Treasury may help with expenses if it wishes? My reason for raising this specific point arises from a letter I received recently from a company in my constituency relating to this levy and the purpose to which it is to be put. I shall give the House a brief summary of this letter. The firm states that on 8th September, 1964, it was advised by the Ministry of Labour that it came within the scope of the Engineering Industry Training Board. Straight away the firm wrote to the Ministry of Labour and said that as it was engaged only in the rubber industry it disputed the assessment that it came within the scope of that Board.
It was not until three months later that it received a letter from the E.I.T.B. that its letter had been carefully considered and that it appeared that the firm was in the engineering industry. This company took the trouble of referring to S.I. 1086, which defined those companies which were concerned, and as it happened the view of the company was quickly confirmed. It wrote to the E.I.T.B. on 15th January to say that according to this Statutory Instrument it was excluded from participation. Again, it was not until three months later—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is discussing another Statutory Instrument, which defines what is an engineering firm. He must come back to the question of the levy.

Mr. Farr: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my purpose in raising this point was to discuss some of the purposes to which the levy will be put, and to show that there is a certain amount of laxity at the moment in the running of the E.I.T.B.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There may be. I do not question the right of the hon. Member to raise this matter on the appropriate occasion, but this is not the occasion.

Mr. Farr: I immediately bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As time is short I will content myself by saying that I will take an early opportunity of sending this correspondence to the hon. Member, and trust that he will study it.
Will he be good enough to answer my two earlier questions? I assure him that I welcome the Order.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): I must apologise to hon. Gentlemen who, I can see, would like to take part in this debate, but I am sure they will appreciate that I must take some time to answer some of the points which have been raised so far. We may well, I hope, since this is an important subject, have other opportunities of debating it either on the Adjournment, or, if the Opposition feel strongly about it, they may even care to devote a Supply day to it.
To answer, first, the specific points of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), the total cost of the Engineering Board levy is likely to be about £80 million in the first year as a result of the 2½ per cent. levy.
The second point which the hon. Gentleman raised was answered recently in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who asked whether the Treasury would, in fact, assist the boards. Direct Treasury assistance given to the boards up to 31st March is about £135,000, and, of course, a great deal of assistance has been given to the boards by providing them with staff, particularly senior staff, during this interim period.
It is estimated that during the current year direct Government grant to the boards will be running at about £1½ million. It would be quite dishonest to suggest that it is anticipated at any stage that Government grants will equal the size of the levies. I think that when one considers the size of the levies, when one realises that we have another 25 or 28 boards to set up and that already, in this first year, the levies are running in total at not so far short of £100 million, hon. Members on both sides will appreciate that it would be unlikely that any Government would make that sort of grant.
At the moment, the position is that the Government have made grants of about £135,000, and in the current year the Government grant will be about £1½ million, but one obviously expects that eventually the boards will be self-supporting.
If I may turn very briefly to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) may I say that I think he really is a little too sensitive on these points. He may disagree with me, but it seems to me an extraordinary attitude that the Opposition should complain that the Government spokesmen have not put their case for them.
The discussion on this Industrial Training Levy Order arose in the course of a previous debate on technology, on 14th July. I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would agree that the proceedings developed into a brawl. I do not object to this at all, although hon. Gentlemen might have done. In that debate, I was reported as saying:
Under the Industrial Training Act, in the first year alone the Government will spend a sum not far short of £100 million.
Whether I said this, I personally doubt, but I do not think that anybody could honestly have believed that a Parliamentary Secretary was throwing "off the cuff" Government expenditure of £100 million next year without anybody knowing anything about it.
If the right hon. Gentleman did believe this he was soon disabused, because I told him the very next day that this would be a fantastic belief. In case there were any doubts after that, a written answer was given to him on the following Monday, the earliest opportunity, in which it was explained exactly what money had been spent by the Government on this.

Mr. Godber: rose—

Mr. Marsh: Well, I had less than 20 minutes last time, so I suppose that it does not matter if I have only 10 minutes this time.

Mr. Godber: A typical discourtesy. I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary would not adopt this attitude. In fact, the Written Answer was given at the earliest opportunity simply because I put


a Written Question down, but the Parliamentary Secretary seems to imply that a special attempt was made to put the thing right. This was not the main charge I brought against him.

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman gets so touchy when people hit back. I have made two attempts to speak on this subject. On the first occasion I was just bawled out by his right hon. and hon. Friends. On this occasion, I did not deal with the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, because he got up and interrupted me. I then went on to say, in case there should be any misunderstanding:
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this, because they are in favour of retraining."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 630.]
It seems to me to put the position quite clearly. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so sensitive—

Sir Tatton Brinton: rose—

Mr. Marsh: This is intolerable—

Sir T. Brinton: On a point of order. Many hon. Members have stayed here in the hope of discussing the size of the levy. Is what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying to the point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Apparently there is a personal issue between the Parliamentary Secretary and the former Minister. To be fair to both sides, I have allowed them each the same amount of latitude. I hope that they will not take up the whole time on it.

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry. I do not know whether one is entitled to reply to the allegations which keep being made. I agree that this is perhaps not the right time to do so, but the point was raised, and I thought that I might have an opportunity to deal with it.
Then there was an interruption by the right hon. Gentleman the then Leader of the Opposition who said, "We passed the Act." I went on to refer to Prayers being down to annul the Orders. That does not strike me as being too serious a thing to have said, and I do not want to alter it. When the right

hon. Gentleman for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was dealing with similar Prayers in the past, he was able to make similar allegations, when he said:
This Government are pressing ahead, well ahead of anything which the party opposite has any intention of doing in this field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 651.]
However, I leave that, because this is becoming childish. I am quite willing to debate the matter at any other time but the right hon. Member is not the only one who feels aggrieved about it.
The difference in the size of the levies is a very understandable point to make. In the construction industry, the levy will be 1·2 per cent. of total remuneration in the full year. In the iron and steel industry, it will be only £7 per employee in the year. In the Wool Board, it will be 0·75 per cent. of the payroll, and, as has been said, in the engineering industry it will be 2·5 per cent. So far, the other boards have not produced levies, although eventually they all will.
It is reasonable that one should ask why there should be this variation for what would appear to be the same function. But it is not quite as much a problem as it might seem to be on the surface. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight made the point earlier, when he said that he wanted an assurance that the levies would not be another Road Fund that could be raided by any Government in the future, and that they would stay in the industries.
The first point to be made is that none of the money will leave the industry. It will be raised by the industry and kept within the industry, and the industry will have control of it. It is not a tax, taking money out of the industry. The Government will have no claim on the money, because it is money which will be raised within the industry, and it will be distributed within the industry for its benefit. An even more important point—and it is why I say that it does not matter about the difference in the levies as much as might appear on the surface—is that wherever there is a high level of levy, there will be a high level of grant.
Provided the employers are doing the training which is necessary—and that is particularly true of the foundry industry, where there is a real variation between the two boards—if they pay a low level


of levy, they will get back a small grant. If they pay a high levy and do the job, they will get back a high grant.

Sir T. Brinton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that there ought to be a profit on the expenditure on a man who is training? May I draw his attention to the facts that there are 25 million employed people in the country, that the Government spend £1,500 million a year on education, or £60 per employed person, but that it is proposed to spend £20 on training? It seems rather high.

Mr. Marsh: It is too late in the evening to deal with the details of how the grants were arrived at. The first thing which the Engineering Board has done and which, I hope, all the other boards will do, is to redistribute the costs of training. One problem has been that firms who have good training arrangements are subsidising firms with no training arrangements. I think that I am right in saying that this is one of the views of the Machine Tool Traders Association. Therefore, the distribution of training costs was a real feature of the scheme, as well as the establishment of standards.
It should be accepted that the cost of training is yery high for the firm which is doing it properly. It is not just a question of apprenticeship training. It is a question of management training, of technological training, which is a very real factor, of subsequently the boards carrying out the responsibility for adult retraining, taking green labour and retraining it and giving people whose skills are in less demand the new skills demanded by expanding industries. It is a question also of carrying out inspections, of having a central inspectorate to act as consultants on training facilities.
The whole thing is a very expensive job. The 2½ per cent of the Engineering Board's levy is virtually the amount of money which is being spent now. All that is happening about this is that some firms have been carrying the burden for other firms which have existed merely by pirating the skilled labour from firms which do this job. This is not a Government decision. This is a decision taken by both sides of industry.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Would the Minister concentrate

particularly on the foundry industry, because similar firms are paying different levies? This will be unequal. What steps will be taken to study the problem?

Mr. Marsh: This is the first year of the operation of the Act. There is the joint committee. We hope that we shall overcome at least some of the difficulties. The problem is not as large as it appears to be, because it does not matter how big the levy is. If a firm is doing the training, the grant which comes back to it will be correspondingly large. Therefore, it does not matter whether it is paying large levies or small levies, because firms will be getting large grants or small grants according to the levy.
It would be difficult to say how far we have gone so far. In the first year the Engineering Training Board has done an incredible job, as have all the boards. This has been an enormous job. Twenty-seven thousand firms have had to be identified and registered. About 1,000 firms, as they are perfectly entitled to do, have objected to being included in the list. Their complaints are being dealt with. The boards have carried out an enormous and revolutionary change.
I conclude on the note on which we started—or, perhaps, on a rather different one. No one disputes the right hon. Gentleman's contribution in this field when he was Minister of Labour. No one could dispute that he introduced the Bill, but I believe that if the party opposite had had the administration of this Bill, they would not have done what we have done or what we want to do. [Interruption.] I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree, but that is my belief.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I thought that we had left that. We are broadening the debate again.

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we are not. We are dealing, with respect, with the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order, surely?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Minister must be courteous to the Chair. If he wants to dispute the Chair's Ruling, there are correct ways of doing it. I ask him to return to the Order.

Mr. Marsh: I would merely leave the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by saying that


the Board has done an incredibly good job in a comparatively short time. The whole of the Act marks a complete revolution in industrial training in this country and in the years to come the position will be such that we shall have laid foundations, as a result of this Order, that could provide us with the highest standards of industrial training in the world, a thing of which due warning was given yesterday when, at the International Apprentice Competition, this country—I am sure that this is not out of order—came top out of every country competing.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Godber: By leave of the House, may I, in the few remaining moments, say that I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the last remarks that he tried to make. I think that both he and I can leave the matter with honour there. I am sorry that that matter arose.
We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information he has given us about that Order. I am sure that he will agree that it would be of advantage if we could discuss in more detail the problems of these levies on a future occasion. We shall study what he has said with care.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(DUTIES OF THE BOARD.)

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 3 line 12, at end insert:
( ) In the exercise of their functions under this Act the Board shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery in the Highlands and Islands".

11.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment simply puts a duty on the Board to have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery in the Highlands and Islands. It was pointed out in another place that this

is one of the most valuable assets that we have in the Highlands and Islands and that it ought to be preserved. It is desirable that we make this provision in the Bill.
Lest anyone has doubts as the propriety of doing it in the Bill, there is a precedent for it. A similar provision is incorporated in the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Obviously, no one wants the beauty of the Highlands to be adversely affected. Oddly enough, this matter was not discussed in Committee, but it was discussed in another place. One point which did not come out in another place was that, while it is very desirable that natural beauty should not be spoiled, a similar provision in respect of the hydro-electric schemes of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board was used, on occasions, as a delaying measure rather than solely for the eminently desirable purpose originally envisaged under the Act.
I hope that the Minister will assure that the present proposed provision will not be a hindrance to the Board. He will recall that it was suggested in another place that it could have been covered by Clause 3 (1, a) dealing with social well being.

Mr. Willis: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, in fact, we do not expect this to prove any hindrance at all to the Board in the performance of its duties. The Amendment would merely lay down in the Bill that, in performing its duties, the Board must take this aspect of the matter into account. That is all. It would not, so far as I know, give rise to the same sort of hindrance as arose under the hydro-electricity Acts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 7, line 2, after "required" insert:
by the occupier or anyone acting on his behalf".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment would merely limit the number of persons who would be entitled to require an officer of the Board to produce his written authority. It


seems to be a desirable Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 7, line 3, leave out "before so entering".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment would limit the power of entry provisions in the Clause and make it mandatory on any authorised person entering upon land to produce his authority on request not just before entering, but after he has secured entry. It covers the case of an officer who has made an entry in the absence, perhaps, of the occupier, and the occupier has come along to ask for his authority. It also obviates the difficulty that some people saw, that persons might be waiting at the entrance for the officer of the Board to arrive. The Clause was not too happily phrased in this regard, and the Amendment seems to us to be an improvement.

Mr. Michael Noble: A question has just entered my head. Suppose an officer of the Board was wandering round a property, perhaps behaving in a rather suspicious way to a passer-by. Could a police constable ask him what he was doing there? Would he not have to show his authority to the police officer?

Mr. Willis: The Amendment that we have just passed covers the people who are entitled to ask for the authority. The Amendment limits them to the occupier or anyone acting on his behalf. I imagine that a police officer who sees somebody behaving suspiciously has the normal rights of the police to find out what he is doing, and that would not, of course, be affected by this provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 7, line 4, after "unless" insert "at least".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This makes clear what was already implicit in the Bill—that the period of notice specified in the Bill is the minimum period.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In Clause 10, page 7, line 5, after "purposes" insert "at least".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment does the same as the previous Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11.—(POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.)

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 8, line 3, leave out "any" and insert "such".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, might we deal, at the same time, with Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Willis: The purpose of the Amendments is to provide that a notice requiring information should specify the functions for the execution of which the Board requires the information. We have always made it clear that there is no intention of giving the Board dictatorial or arbitrary powers. We have always maintained the belief that, although the powers given in the Clause are necessary, they must be used reasonably. The Amendments help to clarify the position. They make it mandatory on the Board to specify the function or functions for which it requires the information. This is not unreasonable, and I command the Amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 8, line 14, at end insert:
In determining whether information is so reasonably required by the Board the sheriff may take into account the probable cost or inconvenience to the person who has been required to furnish the information".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is to make it clear that it is open to a recipient of a notice under Clause 11 to appeal on the ground of


excessive cost or unreasonable inconvenience. The matter was raised during Committee and on Report in this House and in another place. The Amendment makes it clear, therefore, that if an appeal is made this is one of the considerations that can be taken into account. We think it a desirable provision to make.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like some clarification. The point was certainly pressed on the Report stage. There was a fear that particularly new or declining businesses which would be the subject of most interest by the Board in carrying out this function might be subject to excessive cost. Does the Amendment make it clear that, if the cost or the trouble were unreasonable, those concerned might be exempted from providing this information?
Is there provision for a small business to be given professional assistance or even some kind of grant to enable it to provide the information that the Board may require? I appreciate that the Amendment might prevent the Board from getting information from a small business which it feels is required. Is there any provision in the Bill, by virtue of the Amendment or some other provision, whereby professional assistance by the Board's officers or some grant may be given to help the business provide the information?

Mr. Willis: I said in Committee that we thought this point to be covered by Clause 9(1,d) and the hon. Member will find that that is so. The Board will have power to do what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13.—(ACCOUNTS OF THE BOARD ETC.)

Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 9, line 6, leave out "accounts of" and insert:
statement of account prepared by".

Mr. Willis: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the remaining five Lords Amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Willis: This and the remaining Amendments are drafting, designed to bring the other subsections into conformity with the language used in subsection (1).

Mr. J. Grimond: Do I understand that there is no difference between an account and a statement of account?

Mr. Willis: As I understand it, no. At least, there is no difference so far as the intention of the Clause is concerned. Subsection (1) uses the words "a statement of account" and the Amendments bring the other subsections into line with that wording.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

11.45 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Launcher Development Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.
It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to take together this Motion and the next, also standing in my name, together.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely agreeable to the Chair if the House so pleases.

Mr. Thomson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Both these Motions deal with Orders concerning diplomatic immunities and privileges. I am very aware that the House is properly sensitive about any extension of these diplomatic immunities and privileges. I hope to show that both these Orders are of very limited application in terms of the number of persons to whom they apply and, more important, that both tighten up considerably the kind of immunities which are granted,


and do so on the lines which the House has urged on the Government on a number of occasions. This is especially so in relation to motoring offences, about which the House has been particularly anxious on previous occasions and it is also true about arrangements for exemption from Income Tax.
The Orders themselves are required to give effect to international agreements which Her Majesty's Government have entered into conferring privileges and immunities on the European Space Research Organisation and the European Launcher Development Organisation and persons connected with them. These organisations came into being in 1964 to co-ordinate European efforts in space research and technology and in the development of a European space vehicle launcher.
I ought to say that both organisations are engaged in wholly peaceful work which enjoys the support of the House. Both have a secretariat concerned with administration and technical planning and establishments in member countries engaged on practical work. The headquarters of both organisations are in Paris. The organisations do not have establishments in the United Kingdom, nor is it presently envisaged that any will be set up here. There will be occasional visits by staff members and experts to this country and there may be meetings of organs of the organisations held here from time to time.
The numbers involved, therefore, are very small and, in fact, consist entirely of temporary visitors. In general, the orders are similar to those in respect of other European organisations, but, as I said, there are certain important modifications and limitations as compared with previous Orders.
For the first time, proceedings in respect of motoring offences and accidents are excluded from the immunity from suit of the organisations and, with the exception of the head of the organisation, of its employees. Our spokesmen at the negotiations of the protocols were insistent on these limitations. They had particularly in mind the concern which has been expressed in the House on these matters.
This will mean that the organisations and their employees will be subject to

the jurisdiction of our courts in respect of proceedings, both criminal and civil, which arise out of motoring offences and accidents. I ought to make it clear to the House that while national representatives of the organisations which have no immunity in their private motoring, they will still enjoy immunity in the use of their cars in the exercise of their official functions.
The second limitation is that the organisations will not have immunity from proceedings to enforce an arbitration award made against them. Under the international agreements to which the Orders give effect, each organisation is required to include an arbitration clause in all its written contracts. It will be required to submit to arbitration disputes arising out of its non-contractual obligations, or those in which it is otherwise involved directly or through an intermediary or any member of its staff whose immunity has not been waived. This is an important modification of the immunity from suit which the majority of international organisations enjoy.
There is a further new limitation. The exemption of officials of the organisations from United Kingdom Income Tax is now to be conditional on the existence of an internal tax system within the organisations. This is the first time that this has been written into any of these Orders. This means that the salaries of officials will always be subject to tax. Either they will be subject to the tax of their own country or, when the Organisations have their own tax system, the benefit of the tax will go to the Organisations, and not to any one member State.
The House may be interested in one other novel feature of the Orders. It is that the fiscal privileges of the Organisations are expressly tied to their official activities, as illustrated under Article 9 of the Orders. Thus, under the present provisions, such privileges cannot be extended to, for example, any commercial activities which E.L.D.O. may come to have when it moves beyond its present stage of development of its prototype space vehicle launcher. A final, and more general point is that in this Order, for the first time, the application of Part 4 of the Schedule of the 1950 Act, under which all Orders are made, is entirely excluded.
This is important to the House in relation to past anxieties. It means that families of the officials of the Organisations, and also the official staff, and the representatives of the official staff, and experts, will not enjoy privileges and immunities.
I now wish to deal with the matter raised by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee has reported that the purport of these instruments calls for elucidation, and I would like to apologise to the Committee, and to the House, for what I certainly agree is some obscurity in the verbiage of the Orders. I understand that the particular point on which elucidation is considered necessary is that raised in Article 12 of each Order—relating to
a permanent member of the staff of the Organisation in any of the staff categories A, B, C and L.
The Orders provide that persons so described shall enjoy limited immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts, and exemption from Income Tax in respect of particular emoluments. The question is whether the contents of these categories may be changed by the Organisations without reference to this House.
I should like to explain to the House why the provisions in question were drafted in precisely the present form. The House will recall that Section 1 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, lays down that any Order in Council made under it shall be so framed as not to confer any immunities and privileges to a greater extent than is required by international agreement. The object of the agreements, to which the present draft Orders are intended to give effect, provides that the privileges defined in Article 12 of the Order shall be conferred on categories of staff members which, and I quote, "the Council shall decide".
Subsequent to the conclusion of the agreements, the Council for each Organisation has made a decision defining the categories concerning precisely the staff categories A, B, C and L. Therefore, the Orders, as they are now drafted, do no more and no less than give effect to the requirements of agreements as implemented by the decisions of the two councils.

I should remind the House that a provision in comparable terms, referring to all officers of grades 1 to 10 inclusive is already included in the Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962.
The present provisions, therefore, are not without precedent, although, as I have said, I apologise for the difficulties the House must have had in interpreting what was meant by these alphabetical categories of international servants. The categories in question are those employed in other European organisations. So far as possible, international organisations are encouraged to adopt standard rules in this matter.
I can go into further detail if the House wishes after other Members have spoken Perhaps it will suffice at this stage to explain that these four categories comprise all staff occupying permanent posts in the Organisations, except the locally recruited staff, on hourly rates of pay. It is possible that the content of each category may change in that, for the purposes of the application of staff regulations, persons might conceivably be transferred from one of these categories to another. I am advised that for practical purposes the possibility can be disregarded that the overall content of these four categories will ever be extended to include any of the locally recruited staff, who are at present excluded.
I would emphasise that the immunities that are given to these particular groups of members of the staffs of these Organisations are strictly limited. They do not affect the matters that normally give concern in this House, such as exemption from liability in respect of motor accidents.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of categories, by my asking a question now we may save time later. Does not the question of individuals moving from one category to another, or the number of individuals in that category increasing, relate to the question of whether the definition of the category could be enlarged by the Council after the date of the Order? Would he address his remarks to that point?

Mr. Thomson: That is what I am seeking to do. I was explaining that the only group excluded at the moment from


these categories—and, therefore, from the immunities that go with them—is the group composed of locally recruited staff. I was seeking to reassure the House that it is inconceivable that any of the organisations would seek to extend the exemption categories in a way which would include the locally recruited staff. I hope that I have also been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, on this point.

Commander Anthony Courtney: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the strictly limited privileges and immunities which these Orders purport to give. I am sure that he will confirm the frequent mention in both Orders of the words:
… the like inviolability … accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power …".
Surely one could have no greater measure of immunity or privilege than that?

Mr. Thomson: I am referring to employees who do not receive immunities of that description. The immunities he describes relate only to one person in each organisation—the senior officer, the director general in one and the secretary genral in the other. They do not relate to the categories to which I am referring and which have given legitimate cause for anxiety among members of the Select Committee.
I simply wish to point out that, apart from there being little risk of an open-ended commitment being involved here, these categories contain very limited immunities. Apart from the Income Tax exemption, which is now being severely limited, as I have described, they simply have
… immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts, including words written or spoken, done or omitted to be done … in the course of the performance of official duties …
These are the minimum exemptions which are required for members of international organisations to be able to perform their functions. These privileges should be readily comprehensible to hon. Members because they are similar in character to the privileges which allow us to perform our duties in this Chamber freely and without fear.
I am conscious of the fact that Orders of this type are never popular with the

House. It is right that we should always carefully consider legislation which puts any person or institution in a special legal position compared with other persons and institutions.
I do not wish to delay the House, so I will content myself with saying that our representatives at the negotiations of the protocols, to which these Orders give effect, did their best to introduce into these agreements the new features which I have sought to describe. They did this precisely in response to the views expressed in past debates on similar orders, some of those views having been expressed by hon. Members who are taking part in this discussion tonight.
I hope, in the light of my explanation, that the House will welcome the Orders.

11.59 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for the care he has taken in trying to explain the two Orders, which are complex and lengthy. Had his hon. Friend and colleague the Minister of State sought to do the same, I think that he would have found the House much more restive, because, on the last occasion when we discussed Orders of this nature, his hon. Friend seemed for some reason to be impatient that the House should be anxious about diplomatic immunities and privileges that are accorded. As the Minister of State rightly told us tonight, however, the House is sensitive about these matters. It is for that reason that we have the affirmative Resolution procedure, which gives hon. Members on all sides a chance to ask certain questions.
One of the first questions with which all of us must always be concerned is how many persons are involved in the Orders, in this case concerning E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. The Minister of State said that it would be a very small number and would concern only what he described as temporary visitors. I suggest that that is not a satisfactory explanation. The two Orders are of considerable length. They would not come before the House unless it is intended that there shall be a meeting shortly concerning important questions of technology and research in launcher development programmes. We are, therefore, entitled to have a more


accurate assessment of how many persons are involved.
We appreciate that these Orders are more restrictive than any other Orders that we have recently considered, namely, those relating, for instance, to the Council of Europe, Western European Union or the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the International Development Association and the Customs Cooperation Council. We welcome the fact that the Government, through their representatives, have also sought to try to establish greater restrictions in three important categories, in response to opinions expressed by hon. Members, on all sides of the House.
The Minister of State mentioned, in particular, a category of more restrictive provisions concerning motor vehicles, which has always aroused hon. Members to great personal concern. I understand that the Organisation is immune from suit and legal process within the scope of its official activities except, under these Orders,
in respect of a civil action by a third party for damage arising from an accident caused by a motor vehicle belonging to, or operated on behalf of, the Organisation, or in respect of a motor traffic offence involving such a vehicle".
That is an advance. Article 11 applies also, I understand, to the Secretary-General or his representative if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and it applies also to a permanent member of the staff of the Organisation in any of the staff categories A, B, C and L. I shall refer later to these categories, which are the result of comments by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
First, however, I think that I am right in saying that these greater restrictions on motor offences also apply to experts who are under contract to the Organisation, to any expert
who is a member of any committee or organ of the Organisation or is employed on a mission on behalf of the Organisation".
Therefore, one is bound to ask the obvious questions: how many of these committees are there, how many organs are there, what is meant by "organ" and which organs are they? These questions of motor traffic offences always arouse strong feeling.
We must welcome the greater restrictions that apply to tax. I understand that whether or not one is a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies, no person shall receive exemption from Income Tax in respect of emoluments until these are subject to taxation by the Organisation itself. These, again, apply to the categories, A, B, C and L, but for some reason they do not apply to experts. Therefore, I should like to know, why not?
Then we come to arbitration, which once more is more restricted. Article 3(1,c) lays down that the Organisation within the scope of its official duties shall have immunity from suit or legal process, except
in respect of the enforcement of an arbitration award made under Article 25 or Article 26 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Organisation ….
That being so, it means, as I understand it, that the Organisation itself can be made to submit to arbitration disputes arising out of contracts entered into by it, otherwise involving its responsibility or that of its staff.
I should like to turn to the question commented on by the Minister of State which concerns the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in a Report dated 27th July. It referred, of course, in particular, to Article 12, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will refer to this if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister of State pointed out was that both the Orders, in referring to Article 12 and the particular immunities and privileges enjoyed by the staff, refer to categories A, B, C and L.
But in no instance is reference made to any document in which those categories are defined. I myself have examined the Protocols; I have examined the Conventions; I went to the Library to search. In none of those documents was it possible to discover what those categories A, B, C and L are. I suggest to the Minister of State that it is not sufficient to bring Orders of this kind before the House if we cannot have either a definition order or else a schedule defining these particular categories. I am well aware that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, pointed out that these categories applied


on the whole to permanent staff and not to those locally recruited.
That is so, and it has been reinforced by the Minister of State tonight, but I would suggest to him that even if we pass these Orders tonight—as I hope we shall, because they are more restricted in their general application—nevertheless, he should consider whether it would not be possible to bring forward an amending Order which would clearly define, for all who study these matters, exactly what is meant by the words "categories A, B, C and L". Surely, as it stands, this is not the way by which we can easily understand legislation.
That was one point. The second one was where the Committee wished to be assured that Article 12 in each Order does not legislate by reference to a category the content of which may change. This is very important, because in the official reply to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments the Secretary of State pointed out this fact:
There seems to be no possibility that a decision taken by either council would have any substantial effect on a distinction between the staff presently included in the categories specified in Article 12 and other staff of the Organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
This means in effect, that no person who was excluded under this Article from privileges and immunities would be likely"—
I emphasise those words, "would be likely"—
to be brought within the scope by any subsequent decision of the Organisation.
I submit to the House that those words are very vague. It does not say that it is impossible to bring in other categories or to change staff from one category to another, and I think that the House needs reassurance on this point.
The Secretary of State sought to assure the Select Committee by pointing out that a precedent exists under the Central Treaty Organisation Immunities and Privileges Order which, incidentally, is wrongly numbered in the exchange of correspondence as 133. I suggest to the Minister that he should correct that, because it causes trouble to our librarians. The real number is 137.
All this Order says is that the staff refers to Grades 1 to 10 inclusive, and

no one is any the wiser. How is one to know what is meant by Grades 1 to 10 inclusive, or by Grades A, B, C and L? I suggest to the Minister that it would not be too difficult to bring forward a short amending Order for the purpose of defining the categories clearly, and, secondly, to make quite sure that there cannot be a variation between the categories without control of Parliament, because that is really the point at issue.
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Orders set out the various privileges and immunities in respect of the official activities of the Organisations, and their official activities are set out in paragraph 9 of the Orders. If one takes the first Order, that of the European Launcher Development Organisation, paragraph 9 says that the
official activities of the Organisation shall be its administrative activities and the design, development and construction of prototype space vehicle launchers.
The definition in paragraph 9 of the Order relating to the European Space Research Organisation says that the
official activities of the Organisation shall include its administrative activities and those undertaken in the field of space research and space technology in pursuance of the purposes of the Organisation as defined in the Convention for the Establishment of the Organisation.
When one looks at the Conventions one observes how large and growing are these particular activities. For instance, it is suggested that the European Space Research Organisation shall aim during an initial eight-year period to achieve,
the firing, at a rate building up to a steady level of the equivalent of about 65 medium sized vehicles per year by the third year of its existence, of a variety of types of fully-instrumented vertical sounding rockets containing mainly nationally financed experiments;
(b) the successful launching, annually, from the fourth year of its existence, of two fully-instrumented small satellites in near-earth orbits;
(c) the successful launching, from the sixth year of its existence, of two fully-instrumented space probes or major satellites (i.e., requiring large launching vehicles).
The location of the establishments from which these launchings shall take place or the administrative locations are to be in the Netherlands, in the German Federal Republic, in Sweden, and in Italy.
If one takes the Convention which governs the Statutory Instrument which


we are discussing tonight concerning the establishment of the European Organisation for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers, one perceives that the Organisation is required to undertake as its initial programme
the design, development and construction of a space vehicle launcher using as its first stage the rocket 'Blue Streak' and with a French rocket as its second stage,
and that
the development firings of the first stage and of the complete launcher shall be conducted at Woomera, Australia.
Therefore, it will be observed that what we are discussing tonight is the question whether we shall accord greater diplomatic immunities and privileges to what is without doubt a growing and important part of our technological and space research. Quite apart from the categories of persons that we have discussed, and whether or not one can enlarge these categories without reference to Parliament, or Parliamentary control, it is also important that the House should recognise that in a growing industry of this kind it is very likely that the actual numbers will grow to a very large extent.
If the Minister of State sees fit to reply, by leave of the House, I hope that he will tell us what, in his estimation, are likely to be the kinds of conference that we shall see here in London, and the number of people who will take advantage of these diplomatic immunities and privileges, and what are the numbers which are likely to increase, and for which we shall have granted diplomatic immunities and privileges without any Parliamentary control. These are matters of great concern to the House.
We welcome the more restrictive character of these two Orders and the manner in which the Minister of State has introduced them, but there are several questions which my hon. Friends will wish to probe further.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Before becoming critical of these two draft Orders I want to make some complimentary remarks. We welcome some of the unusual limitations upon immunities contained in both Orders. It might be worth while to group these as they appear in the Orders. There are the group of limitations on the immunities when using

motor vehicles, which appear in Article 3(1,b), Article 11(1,b(i)), Article 12(a) and Article 13(1,a). These are all limitations on immunities granted in other Orders to those driving vehicles on the roads.
Then there is the limitation from immunity to arbitration, which is included in Article 3(1,c); the limitation on the immunity of the Organisation from taxes on the importation of goods, prohibitions on importation or exportation, the limitation on the immunity to cases of official activities of the Organisation, which again is a welcome limitation, and the limitations on the immunity from taxation, which appear in Article 11(1,a(ii)) and Article 11(1,b(iii)). Finally, I mention in particular Article 13(2), which excludes Part IV of the Act and therefore prevents immunities from spreading to the official staff and the high officers' families.
Having welcomed the Order containing those Articles I must now become critical in respect of Article 12, which was referred to in the Select Committee's Report. I would remind the House briefly of the duties of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It examines all Statutory Instruments which are subject to Parliamentary procedure and is charged with the duty of reporting them to the House if it finds that there is an unusual or unexpected use of the Minister's powers in subordinate legislation; if it finds that they are retrospective, and if it finds certain other things in its terms of reference, one of which is that the contents of the Order require elucidation. It is under that term of reference which the Report on these two Orders is made.
The objection which the Select Committee found to Article 12 of both these Orders was that it included a category of staff undefined, and a category which might be changed by some document coming into existence or some decision made by the councils of these bodies at a date later than the date of these Orders.
There are recent precedents for the Select Committee's objection to this type of subordinate legislation, two recent occasions when similar efforts at subordinate legislation by reference to some future documents were brought before the House. There was the recent case future documents were brought before


of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations, 1963, Statutory Instrument 1897 of 1963, in which the Regulations required builders to comply with the British Standard code of practice, not only the British Standard code of practice in existence at the time when the Order was made, but the latest edition and any amendment thereto.
This was a reference to an existing document, but a document which might be changed by the British Standards Institution, a body not responsible to this House, and therefore able to alter subordinate legislation approved by this House without reference to this House.
The debate on that resulted in the Regulations being altered. The offending phrase was deleted. For the purpose of reference, this debate was in the OFFICIAL REPORT, of 10th February, 1964, at cols. 161–186. This was only so long ago as February, 1964. The other precedent was in April, 1964, reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th April at cols 1017–1054, and this was the case of the Weights and Measures (Equivalents for Dealing with Drugs) Regulations, 1964. In this case the Regulations referred to the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex, and required the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of certain drugs to apply a metric equivalent to an order expressed in grains when it referred to certain drugs, and it defined those drugs by saying those which had a monograph in the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex, and
any amendment or new edition thereof".
Again, this was a case of the Minister responsible to the House for the subordinate legislation abdicating his powers to some outside body, because these two documents, the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex, are produced by the General Medical Council and the British Pharmaceutical Society, and can be altered at any time by those bodies.
In this case the result of the debate was that the Regulations were amended by a simple, single Order, the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Regulations, 1964, which removed the offending words
or any amendment or new edition thereof".

I have spent a little time mentioning these two precedents because it has been mentioned that there is a precedent for the Orders which are before us tonight, the Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962. But I would call attention to the date of that Order—1962—and to the fact that these two other precedents I have quoted were only last year, 1964, and that they have, I would say, overidden whatever might have been included in the Order of 1962. They have overridden the principle which the House did not consciously approve in 1962, because that Order did not come before it.
I think it has been clearly established that no Minister to whom the House grants the power to legislate by Order can legislate by a document which is not in existence or by any decision which has not been made, when that document or decision falls to be made by some body other than the Minister.
In the case before us, it is quite clear, both from the memorandum of the Department and from what the Minister of State said in presenting the Order to the House, that the councils of each of these bodies could alter the staff regulations at any time and thereby alter the categories which are described in the Order as A, B, C and L. That must surely mean that not only does the House not know how these categories are decided and what are the qualifications of anyone included in them—that is to say, there is no definition in either Order of the categories—but also a body outside the control of the House can vary a Parliamentary enactment to those Statutory Instruments without notice to Parliament at all.
The importance is not only that the Minister is delegating his powers of legislation to some body outside the control of the House, but that the House is also charged by the Act under which these Orders are made to see that they do not extend to certain persons. Unless we know who are included in categories A, B, C and L, we cannot say in the House that the Minister is keeping within the powers of the Act.
As the Preamble says, these Orders are made by virtue of the powers given to the


Minister under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Section 1 of that Act has a proviso, to which reference has briefly been made already. If I may read the actual words of the proviso, having given the Minister power by Order in Council to grant the immunities, it says:
Provided that the Order in Council shall be so framed as to secure that there are not conferred on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent than those which, at the time of the making of the Order, are required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf"—
and these are the important words, at the end of the proviso—
and that no immunity or privilege is conferred upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or as a member of the staff of such a representative.
We cannot be sure, as the Order stands, that a member of the staff of a representative of Her Majesty's Government may not come within these categories described merely in the Order as categories A. B, C and L. If the Order contained a definition of the categories, I should have no complaint, nor should I if the Order had said that the whole staff of these organisations has immunity. But it does not define them in any definite manner like that. It defines certain categories by capital letters which mean nothing to us. The definition may be changed at any time. This comes exactly within the precedents of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations and the Weights and Measures (Equivalents for Dealing with Drugs) Regulations.
I am sure that it would not be the wish of my right hon. and hon. Friends to delay the making of the Order in draft as it is before us. It would be a simple matter for the Minister of State to give an undertaking, as was given on the occasion of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations and the Drugs Regulations, that he will make a simple amending Order defining these categories. I am sure that they can be defined, otherwise they would not have been stated as categories in the Order. They can be properly defined. An amending Order should be properly drafted and presented in due course. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that that will be done.

12.30 a.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I congratulate the Minister of State on the way he presented the Order. His presentation was very different from that of the Minister who presented the last Order of this type. On that occasion the House became very annoyed. I do not agree with my colleagues on these Orders. I understand that under the 1950 Act the Government are quite in order in bringing these Orders forward, but it is time that the Government, who claim that they are a great reforming organisation, approached their colleagues in the international sphere and asked them to reconsider whether this sort of Order and this extension of diplomatic immunity is necessary.
I accept that the immunity granted in these Orders is much more limited than that which has been granted in many previous Orders, but these Orders nevertheless grant some form of diplomatic immunity to another band of people. I hope that I can carry the House with me in my submission that a new look should be taken at these matters. E.L.D.O. is an international organisation because more than two nations are involved in what it is doing. Because more than two nations are involved, it has a council and it becomes an international organisation. Because it becomes an international organisation, those concerned in the organisation must have some diplomatic immunity.
If this is the case, why should not those who work on Concord have diplomatic immunity? Why should not the French people who come over here or the English people who go over to France have exactly the same diplomatic immunity as they would get under the Order if we asked the Italians or the Germans to come and join us on the project and form an international organisation?
To take the argument a stage further, the great organisation of I.C.I. is now building a complex in Holland costing £100 million. If the people working for I.C.I. there come to this country and engage themselves on a new project, why should not they have diplomatic immunity? I know that the Minister of State will probably smile at what I am saying, but the world is becoming far more international. Unless we think again about


these things, within the next 20 or 30 years a vast plethora of these people will be scattered all over the world. Because it was thought right to form a governmental international organisation, the people involved in its activities are accorded some form of diplomatic immunity. But they are no more entitled to diplomatic immunity than people in any similar commercial activity in the world.
What will the people covered by the Orders do? Their work is no more confidential or deserving of diplomatic status than what goes on between the French and the English aircraft manufacturers producing the Concord. They are doing virtually the same thing, though the result of the efforts of one lot will go up into space and the other will fly horizontally. They are dealing with the same sort of problems and technological questions, yet one group of chaps will have diplomatic privilege if they come over here for a conference while the other group will not, being treated as ordinary commercial people not deserving of any sort of diplomatic status.
There is a real point here. I am inclined to think that hon. Members on both sides who have experience at the Foreign Office get into a sort of miasma on this subject and think that people connected with anything which has an international label attached ought automatically to have the status of diplomats. But we are coming to a stage when the growth of international co-operation between two nations, or sometimes three, on various projects will be so much the normal state of affairs that a fresh look will have to be taken at the whole question of what justifies diplomatic immunity.
As I understand, all the activities on these two projects go on outside this country. There is no question of people coming to a plant in this country so secret that they ought to have protection on that account. If they come here, the most that they will do will be to attend a conference round a table, with nice pencils and pads for notes put out by the Foreign Office each morning. But they will be discussing the same sort of technical problems which are being discussed between the French and English working on the Concord.
I am convinced that the right answer is that neither group should have diplomatic protection, They are not doing anything which needs protection. They are not in possession of information beyond the sort of information which every commercial firm dealing with a large new project has and tries to protect all the time in its international dealings. I am sure that the I.C.I. complex in Rotterdam will have just as many secrets which the company would not like to get out, and I am equally sure that I.C.I. would love to be protected by diplomatic immunity.
It is only too likely that, during the next, 10, 15 or 20 years, this sort of development in international co-operation will mushroom into virtually the normal state of affairs as more and more enterprises of this kind involving projects beyond the ability of one nation alone are undertaken. This is the time to look at the matter again with a severely critical eye to consider whether the previous concept of diplomatic immunity is right to be carried into the future.
We are already very disturbed in this country about the number of people who have some diplomatic status, and I am sure that all the other countries which help to form these associations would take the same view. Nothing in these industrial or technological projects justifies diplomatic immunity. I shall not oppose these Orders tonight—they are covered by the 1950 Act—but I take this opportunity of raising the question and asking the hon. Gentleman to consider the whole matter afresh. The problem will grow, and the issue will become a very live one quite soon. Both sides of the House would be wise to direct a searching eye into it now, knowing how likely it is that so many vastly expensive new projects will not, as in the past, be one-nation projects but will be undertaken in co-operation between two or three. There is certainly no reason why one should have diplomatic immunity and the next one should be excluded. I beg the hon. Gentleman to have another look at this.

12.40 a.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I very strongly endorse and support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who has said much that I would


like to have said far better than I could ever do it.
I would ask for the indulgence of the House to broaden the subject a little and introduce a feature which has not been mentioned in the debate. According to the title of the Orders, we are dealing with diplomatic and international immunities and privileges. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at the point which I mentioned in my intervention earlier when I referred to the number of times in these Orders—it is a total of eight, four in each Order—when individuals belonging to E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. are accorded inviolability equivalent to that of an envoy of a foreign sovereign power.
The Orders, as we have heard, are based on the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. That is accepted on all sides of the House. But surely that Act and, therefore, these Orders have been overtaken by a Measure passed last year, the Diplomatic Privileges Act, which gives the force of law in this country to, and ratifies, the provisions of the Vienna Convention on International Relations which was originally signed and initialled by about 97 countries in 1961 and covers diplomatic immunities and privileges in their most general form wherever these are applied.
Does the hon. Gentleman consider that when we deal with matters described as diplomatic and international immunities and privileges they should in the ordinary meaning of words come within the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? I believe that if hon. Members will look at the Convention in the light of these Orders and the 1950 Act they will perhaps come to the conclusion which I have, which is that the Orders should come under the Vienna Convention. If this is so, it seems to me that the right, or international, side of the Foreign Office does not seem to know what the left, or diplomatic, side is doing if it has happened that these two Orders based on the 1950 Act have been made without any reference to, seemingly without any knowledge of, the existence of the Vienna Convention.
Both Measures give immunities and privileges to different people in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for

Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) have already drawn attention to certain anomalies in this respect. I will give certain examples. In these Orders representatives of E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. have immunity, for example, from seizure of personal baggage. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention, where diplomatic agents within the definition of that Convention are subject to search of their personal baggage by Customs authorities when there is good reason to believe that they are carrying dutiable goods?
The Minister of State claimed that there are certain innovations in these Orders. He referred to motoring offences and said that the immunities have been tightened up. Admittedly motoring offences are not covered in the Convention. Conversely, I ask why the ability to search a diplomat's baggage in the Customs is not covered in the Orders. Would that not be an equivalent tightening up to that which he described in relation to motoring offences?
It is noticeable—and the attention of both E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. should be drawn to this—that their classifications of individuals who come within the categories to which these privileges and immunities apply are quite different in each case. The Vienna Convention has three basic categories of individuals—diplomatic agents, administrative and technical staff and service staff.
In these Orders we have another three categories. First, there are representatives, who are given the status of envoys in certain cases. Secondly, there are officers, who are also given the status of envoys in certain cases. Thirdly, there are the so-called experts who are a kind of minor envoys in the way in which they are to be given diplomatic immunities and privileges.
Why could not these Orders have defined experts as "technical staff", for example, and so brought them within the provisions of the Convention? Why is there no mention of this international Convention to which we rather belatedly subscribed a year ago? I ask the hon. Gentleman to clear up these points, which bother me very much, as other and associated points bother my hon. Friends. I should be most grateful if


he could give proper elucidation of these rather complex matters.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. George Thomson: By leave of the House, perhaps I may answer hon. Members, beginning with some of the questions of fact.
The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) asked if I could try to be more precise and said that I owed a duty to the House to be so about the numbers involved. I will gladly give her all the information I can. I was imprecise because it is very difficult to give any sort of accurate assessment about this. E.L.D.O.—to use the biblical-ish title—has 175 employees in the categories that come within these immunities; E.S.R.O. has 500.
As I have said, neither organisation has any establishment here and these Orders simply apply to casual visits for one purpose or another. This is the difficulty in arriving at an estimate. The best estimate I can give—and, quite honestly, it is only a guess—is that perhaps there will be 50 or 60 visitors a year here for varying short periods who may come within the scope of the immunities in the Orders.
The hon. Lady asked if I could give the House more information about the committees and organs mentioned in the Protocol and the Orders. E.L.D.O. has two committees with seven members each and one organ—the Council—with seven representatives. E.S.R.O. has four committees with up to 13 members each and one organ—again the Council—with 13 members.
The hon. Lady also asked why the tax exemption provisions do not apply to the experts and there were a number of other questions about experts. In looking up this matter before the debate, I tried to find out the legal definition of an expert and found that it is somewhat difficult to discover. The other day I heard another current definition of an expert as being a man who had flown over a country by day. Perhaps that is relevant to some of the doubts which have been expressed. I remember once signing the visitors' book in an African country and finding that the man who had signed the book before me in the column marked "Occupation" had written the one word

"expert". I thought that that was the final accolade. The reason why experts are exempt from the various provisions of these Orders is simply that by description they are men employed part time on short-term contracts of one kind or another.
The main point made by the noble Lady and by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was that raised by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—the question of elucidation of these alphabetical categories which are used in the Orders. I can give the House fuller information about what the categories involve. Category A includes staff engaged in administration and professional work; category B the executive, technical and clerical staff; category C the staff in minor technical and service grades and category L translators and interpreters.

Sir D. Glover: The people covered by these Orders seem to be those without technical or secret knowledge. The people who are excluded are the experts, the people with some secret or technical knowledge. All the others are administrative officials.

Mr. Thomson: The experts are excluded only from the taxation provisions. They enjoy the other immunities and I was going on to say why these immunities are granted to people of these types. Perhaps I may finish trying to give the House more information than I am conscious hon. Members were able to get from the Orders about the categories.
These categories were established in 1957 by international agreement, to which we were a party, between the Council of Europe, N.A.T.O., O.E.E.C. and Western European Union in order to standardise the grading structure and salary scales. In an extremely erudite speech, the hon. Member for Crosby raised very large issue of delegated legislation with which, frankly, as a Foreign Office Minister, I am not competent to deal adequately. If he will allow me, I will refer some of the main issues which he raised to my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers.
However, he asked whether there might be some possibility of an amending Order including some more precise definition on the lines which I have just given to


the House. There would be difficulties about that. The trouble, as I think we are all agreed, is the danger of the existing area of immunity being extended more widely. I have explained that, to put it at its very least, this is unlikely—I do not think that it is likely at all—because the only exclusions are local employed, hourly-paid workers and it is inconceivable that any international organisation would try to bring them within the ambit of immunity. The difficulty about laying down descriptive definitions, therefore, in the Order, as the hon. Gentleman wished, is that any time an international organisation wished to change the definitions within the categories enjoying these immunities, it would be necessary to introduce a new Order, which would greatly complicate our procedure.

Mr. Graham Page: That is what I say is absolutely necessary constitutionally in the case of the Building Regulations and the Drug Regulations. The hon. Gentleman's argument is rather like that of the housemaid when she had an illegitimate child—it is only a very small one—only very few people are likely to be involved. But constitutionally it is a very important matter and if these groups were defined in 1957 by the international organisations themselves, cannot we use that definition now in some amending Order?

Mr. Thomson: I hesitate to cross legal swords with the hon. Gentleman, but I think he argued that there were precedents in relation to this, in the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations and in the Weights and Measures Regulations. I followed with great interest the argument he put on this point, but with respect, I do not think that they are exact precedents, because both these cases dealt with matters of domestic legislation as distinct from matters involving, if I may so call it, international legislation. In the Building and the Weights and Measures Regulations one was dealing with an outside council inside the United Kingdom. Here one is dealing with an international body, in which we are partners, and to which we are bound by the kind of international agreements made in setting it up.
This makes a material distinction between the cases the hon. Gentleman

quoted and these immunity Orders. I am conscious that the House was put in a difficulty by the alphabetical definitions, and I appreciate the problems that the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South had in pursuing her research in the library, although I must say that despite all her difficulties she is a very formidable researcher, and I hesitate to think how much more ammunition she would have had if we had made it easier for her to find all the information she wanted. I will do my best on future occasions, in dealing with Orders of this nature, to make sure that more adequate information on this kind of matter is provided to the House.
I do not want to be too precise in my undertaking at this stage, but what I had in mind was that there might have been a more adequate explanation included in the Explanatory Memorandum. There are far too many initials going around in the international field these days, even for those of us who try to follow them. We get very bewildered and I think we might all join in a bit of abolition of capital letter punishment, if I might put it that way. I will try to do my best on future occasions.

Lady Tweedsmuir: My hon. Friends are very appreciative of the trouble the Minister of State has taken to go into this matter, but he seems to imply that this is rather a complicated matter because it is subject to international agreement. Surely it is not too difficult, to have, as part of the Order, a definition clause on categories A, B, C and L. It is not necessary to have it in the Explanatory Memorandum. While we appreciate the care he intends to take in future legislation, could he not consider having a short amending Order, which would define the particular categories of these two Orders, even if we pass them tonight?

Mr. Thomson: I had hoped that my assurance to look at this in the future might have satisfied the House. The difficulty about defining these categories inside the Order—it is a difficulty I have described already—is that every time these international organisations wanted to make any administrative change within the categories which enjoy immunities, without any question of extending the categories, there would need to by a fresh Order, a fresh affirmative procedure. This raises very big issues with


regard to Parliamentary business and delegated legislation, and it is not a matter on which I could give any undertaking, as the House will understand.
The easy way is to try to make sure that the explanation is more adequate, so that one can understand the matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby was good enough to say that if the Order had contained adequate definitions he would have made no complaint. I will look at it in that sense. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) raised some very wide issues with regard to the growth in the numbers of international bodies. I was rather disappointed to hear him take such a gloomy view of the growth of these international bodies because I know that he is a distinguished member of one very notable such body, that which deals with the abolition of slavery.

Sir D. Glover: We have no diplomatic immunity anywhere in the world.

Mr. Thomson: In the smaller world, so to speak, in which we live, it is important to create effective international organisations. We in Britain may be proud of the rôle we play in this matter, although it is rather paradoxical to think that a country like Britain, which has done so much over the years to create international institutions, should house within this country so few of them. Indeed, the problem in regard to immunity for international civil servants is a very limited one for this country compared with some others. Many of us feel that it might be useful in certain circumstances for Britain to act as host to more, rather than fewer, international institutions.
These international institutions enjoy immunities for basically the same reason as we in the House of Commons enjoy certain privileges. It is primarily to allow them to fulfil their international functions more smoothly and efficiently and without undue outside interference. However, I entirely agree that with the spread of international organisations, which is a welcome phenomenon in the world today, we must ensure that we do not create within the general class of public servants throughout the world two classes, a priviledged international class and a very much less privileged national class of civil servants.
In this connection, the House might like to know that the Government have circulated 24 other Governments with a memorandum suggesting that fresh thought should be given to the whole problem of privileges and immunities to international organisations. The Committee on Legal Co-operation of the Council of Europe and the International Law Commission of the United Nations have the matter down for consideration. This subject is, therefore, receiving a considerable degree of attention.
I hope that these general remarks may also partly answer the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) who, as we know, has a long and deep interest in these matters. To answer his main point, I do not think that the Vienna Convention comes into the issue we are discussing.

Commander Courtney: If it is correct to say that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not apply to these matters, what would be the position in the following example? Two Frenchmen come here from Paris. One is a representative of the European Launcher Development Organisation and has rights of immunity from seizure of his personal baggage under Article 10(1,b) of the Order applying to that organisation. The second Frenchman is a counsellor of the French Embassy, but his baggage is subject to search under Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Is that not the position of the second Frenchman, if it is believed that he has dutiable goods in his baggage? Is that not a paradoxical situation?

Mr. Thomson: That point is outside the scope of these Orders. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to write to him and give him a detailed answer. The general answer to the case he mentions is, I think, that the Vienna Convention applies to diplomats in the full international definition of that term. These Orders do not apply, by and large, to diplomats within the definition of the Vienna Convention, with the exception of the secretary general and the director general; the head of each organisation in each case. That is the reason for the difference, to which I have drawn attention. With the explanation I have given of the position, I hope that the House will now approve these Orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Launcher Development Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th July.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Space Research Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1965 be made in the form of the daft laid before this House on 14th July.—[Mr. George Thomson.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — CLYDE TUNNEL WORKERS (CAISSON DISEASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

1.5 a.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: It is with feelings of deep concern that I raise one of the most tragic human problems that I have encountered in over 30 years of public life. It concerns the misery and suffering of men of tough physique who hitherto have always enjoyed perfect health but who, as a result of working in compressed air during the construction of the Clyde Tunnel, contracted what is known as caisson disease of the bone and are now permanently disabled.
Generally speaking, workers in compressed air know the common health danger associated with the work, namely, decompression sickness, referred to colloquially as the "bends", of which there are two types. The symptoms of type one are severe pains around the knees, elbows and wrists coming on within an hour or an hour and a half of decompression and invariably relieved by the sufferer entering a recompression chamber. Type two, unfortunately, shows more severe symptoms: for example, an onset of paralysis within an hour.
The gravamen of my case this morning is that whilst knowledge of the bends is available to the workers in compressed

air, they have no prior knowledge, nor do they receive prior warning, of an additional and more serious hazard to their health, namely, caisson disease of the bone.
A statutory obligation is placed upon employers under Regulation 16 of the Work in Compressed Air Special Regulations, 1958, to supply compressed air workers with a prescribed leaflet. I have a copy of the leaflet with me. It is Statutory Instrument 1958 No. 61, and I wish to read two short extracts from it. It is a leaflet prescribed by the Minister of Labour for issue to workers in compressed air for the purpose of Regulation 16, and it states:
Read these rules carefully. Make sure you understand them for your own sake—follow them. Compressed air workers sometimes get pains in their joints soon after leaving the workings. These pains are called 'the bends', 'caisson sickness' or just 'pains'. They can"—
this is in heavy type—
be almost always avoided.
Overleaf is stated:
If you obey these rules you will safeguard your health. If you do not—you may become seriously ill.
I pose the question whether it is regarded as adequate warning to ask workers, who in some cases may not be the least bit literate, to study a document of this kind, and why, if they have read it, if their employers ensure that they comply with it and they ultimately contract caisson disease, they have no legal claim for compensation. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will, I think, agree that this leaflet confirms my contention that the worker is not warned of this hazard of bone lesions.
I have discussed the problem of bone necrosis in detail with Dr. J. K. Davidson, consultant radiologist, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, a leading authority on the disease, who has been a member of the Medical Research Council Decompression Panel for three years. He carried out a radiographic investigation on 241 men on the completion of the compressed air work on the Clyde Tunnel in December, 1962. This showed that 47 men had already developed one or more bone lesions of varying severity which could lead to total disability and incapacity for work. It has recently become obvious that bone necrosis is a major hazard in


compressed air work, since it can transform a perfectly healthy man into a permanent cripple.
The bends rate of 0·19 per cent. of all decompressions while at work on the Clyde Tunnel is the lowest on record, while bone lesions have been shown to be unusually high. Estimates of the prevalence of bone necrosis are not easy because there is a high turnover of the labour force due to the peripatetic tendencies of the men. The bone lesions become evident about one to three years after work in compressed air has ceased. It could well be that the incidence of bone lesions in the Clyde Tunnel is in fact higher than preliminary figures indicate.
The existing Regulations are obviously unsatisfactory and grossly inadequate in preventing the disease. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that he proposes to have them amended. I understand that all the relevant data regarding the development of this disease are now being collected at the central registry in Newcastle, but what is ti6 happen in the meantime to the poor unfortunate men who are now helpless cripples, whose lives have been shattered as a direct result of blasting their way under the Clyde? They have observed all the Regulations. I say in fairness to the contractors that they insisted on the Regulations laid down; they have been thoroughly observed. Yet no legal compensation is available to these unfortunate victims, though actions have been raised in the law courts.
I wish to give examples with abbreviated case histories of a few of the people who have suffered. I mention one man by name because he is the individual who raised an action in the Court of Session for £8,000, which he lost. His name is James Patterson, an ex-coalminer, aged 39. He has caisson disease in both hips. He has already had one operation on the right hip, and between July and September, 1963, he was in hospital. In March, 1964, he began light work in a bakery, but found it impossible to continue. He is now unemployed. He is married, with three children. While in hospital he had a 100 per cent. disablement pension, presently reduced to 30 per cent. His net loss of income taking into account disability pension, unemployment benefit

and hardship allowance, is somewhere about £14 below his earnings of £28 a week, after deduction of tax, when he was engaged in this work. Unfortunately it is unlikely he will ever work again. He raised an action for £8,000 in the Court of Session, which he lost on legal grounds because it was established that his employers had discharged all their statutory obligations, but I should like to quote from the judgment of Lord Hunter:
The pursuer has suffered considerable pain and will probably continue to suffer further pain and discomfort. He has had one fairly serious operation and may have to undergo at least one other. He is now a man of only 39 and but for the disabilities caused by caisson disease of the bone he might have expected to continue in hard and well paid work for many years yet. If I had found for the pursuer the award of damages would have been a total of £8,000.
But he gets nothing whatsoever. Then there is the case of J. D. aged 41 who is affected in both the shoulder and hip joints. His disability is extremely severe. He is married, with three children, and his disablement pension has varied between 40 per cent. and 70 per cent. H. R., aged 25, has spent a year in hospital undergoing two operations on his hip. He receives an 80 per cent. disablement pension. He is at present in Bridge of Earn Hospital. He received from his employers an ex-gratia payment of £500. D. McD., aged 44 has the disease in his hip. He has an 80 per cent. disablement pension. He has six children, and he received an ex-gratia payment of £750.
The question that I pose is this: had these tough, physically perfect specimens of manhood, known as Tunnel Tigers, examined by the site doctor and passed as fit for work in compressed air, been warned that there was a possibility of developing this crippling disease, would they have bartered their physique and health for a lifetime of pain, poverty and distress for the big money that they could earn for a relatively short period? My investigation shows that if these workers had been warned that they were liable to contract caissons disease of the bones, not a single tunnel would have been built, and I do not blame them. There is no doubt that everything possible will be done to minimise, and I hope ultimately to eliminate, this hazard. Surely we have a moral, if


not a legal, obligation to make adequate and just recompense to these men for their suffering and disabilities?
In America they seem to have an entirely different, but more just, yardstick, because during the construction of the third tube of the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, despite the use of a new method of split shift system working, they paid out no less than 2½ million dollars in compensation to the tunnel workers who developed similar bone lesions?
Is it unreasonable to ask that my hon. Friend should do something by way of providing compensation for these unfortunate victims? My plea for these unfortunate crippled men is that some means should be devised for the payment of adequate compensation, and that it should be made retrospective. If exgratia payments have been made to two workers, why not to the others? I hope that my hon. Friend will make some investigations among the contractors to ascertain why there has been this difference in the treatment of the men concerned. I have heard it rumoured that Paterson and one other worker were not considered for ex-gratia payments because they raised actions. If this allegation is correct, something ought to be done about it, because I regard that method of discrimination as grossly unfair.
Lord Hunter assessed the damages in Paterson's case at £8,000. We have a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and it should not be difficult to devise an Industrial Injuries Board, supplied with funds from the tunnel contractors themselves, and if necessary supplemented by the taxpayer, to whom such cases as I have mentioned can be referred. It must be remembered that many more cases are likely to occur, but the victims may not associate their complaints with the fact that for a few short months they worked in compressed air in the digging of some tunnel or other. Surely it would not be too much to set up such a Board to whom these cases could be referred?
We have a moral duty and responsibility to provide compensation for these men. That is the least that we can do for erstwhile fit men now condemned to a life of misery and pain. At present we do not know how to prevent the onset of this disease, and I ask my hon.

Friend to give this real human tragedy serious and more than ordinary attention to see how far we can go to alleviate the plight and some of the suffering, by providing compensation for these men, and, unfortunately, the plight in which many more will find themselves as a result of having worked in compressed air.

1.20 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I have listened with deep interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), and I have been deeply moved by the humanity of his remarks on this most disturbing subject. I assure him that we will study very closely all that he has said tonight. I can assure him, further, that my right hon. Friend and I share his concern that everything practicable should be done to protect the health of workers in compressed air. There is not time for me to describe what the existing requirements are and what are the problems of work in compressed air, other than to say that this type of work is subject to special Regulations made in 1958 and amended in 1960 under the Factories Act.
I should also mention that compressed air disease has been notified under the Factories Act since 1939. The object of these Regulations is to protect workers from compressed air disease, caisson disease, or decompression sickness, as it is variously known. The best-known form of decompression sickness is what is commonly known as the "bends", to which my hon. Friend has referred. It must be admitted that the Work in Compressed Air Regulations, even when conscientiously complied with, do not entirely prevent the occurrence of decompression sickness. The experience of the Factory Inspectorate is that the Regulations are usually faithfully observed. I was interested to note my hon. Friend's remark that the Clyde Tunnel workers, as far as he was aware—and it is obvious that he has gone into this matter very closely—observed the Regulations faithfully. We know that even if the Regulations are observed it does not prevent decompression sickness.
As for the bends, expert medical opinion is that the implementation of the Regulations substantially reduces the


number of cases. In the case of bone necrosis there are theoretical—I emphasise the word "theoretical"—scientific grounds for presuming that the Regulations reduce the number of cases. Beyond that, nothing can be said with any certainty, since bone necrosis may occur in men who have never complained of an attack of the bends. I understand that, although the association of bone disease with work in compressed air has been known for many years, the precise details of this association and its causation are still in doubt.
As the cause of the disease is uncertain it can be appreciated how difficult it is to know what special preventive measures should be taken. Hon. Members may think that this is an unhappy situation, and that it indicates plainly the need to strengthen the Regulations, as my hon. Friend has requested of me tonight. In principle I would agree, but unfortunately we do not know what can best be done to strengthen the Regulations. We will certainly consider any suggestions made here tonight, or any advice that is offered to us. At present, however, we know of no definite evidence that precautionary measures other than those already laid down in the Regulations would 'reduce the incidence of bone necrosis. But I must add that the Government have not merely been content to wait for something to turn up. The Medical Research Council has set up an expert panel on decompression sickness, and because of its great interest to our Ministry, it is attended by a deputy senior inspector of factories.
This panel, among its other activities, has paid particular attention to workers on the Clyde Tunnel. It has carried out a survey there on bone necrosis. The report of this survey has not yet been published. Some parts of  are not yet final, but I can briefly state the main findings. About 1,400 persons worked in this tunnel at one time or another and were exposed to compressed air, and it was possible to X-ray 241 men still employed on the job at the end of this contract.

Sir M. Galpern: Whilst we accept all the medical evidence and the inadequacy of knowledge of the disease, what I am most concerned about is what we are

going to do. Are there any proposals to deal with the suffering and misery by financial compensation?

Mr. Thornton: I was coming to that. I am afraid that the question of financial recompense will not be for me to deal with, but I will make passing reference to it before I finish. I think it is important that I should put on record this evidence that has been revealed so far, because it is disturbing evidence.
Bone changes were found in 47, and that is 19 per cent. of those 241 men who were X-rayed. These include the cases to which the hon. Member referred. Twenty-three of the 47 were unfortunate in having lesions at the head of the femur or the humerus, and this means that they might suffer from pain or disability sooner or later. It is known that four of them had already had to undergo surgical treatment on that account, and these are probably the four to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Sir M. Galpern: What I am anxious about is financial compensation.

Mr. Thornton: There is no evidence, for example, that limiting exposure to compressed air to shifts of four hours or less diminishes the risk of bone lesion. As regards pressures, the survey has shown that the decompression tables scheduled under the Regulations do not prevent the occurrence of bone necrosis. But at the same time there is no new evidence on the basis of which these tables could be revised.
The general conclusion which might be drawn from this work is that the evidence does not indicate any changes which might be introduced which could be expected to improve protection against bone necrosis. This is indeed disappointing. It does, however, show that much as my right hon. Friend and I would like to strengthen the Regulations, they afford as high a degree of protection as can be achieved on the basis of the existing state of knowledge.
Let me make it clear, though, that efforts to improve the position will go on. For instance there is to be an international meeting in London this autumn in a continuing attempt to establish the best schedule of decompression, and the Medical Research Council has recently


awarded a research grant to enable further surveys of this type to be carried out among compressed air workers.
The prescribed leaflet which the Regulations require, and which my hon. Friend quoted, is being revised so that it gives a more realistic warning—and I take my hon. Friend's point here—to those a bout to take up work in compressed air of the hazards to which they are subject. In this connection the points made by my hon. Friend will be taken into account, I assure him.
With regard to financial compensation, I am afraid that this does not come within the scope of my Ministry's responsibility. It will be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. The Factories Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour is concerned with protecting persons from damage and from injury to their health. That is the main purpose of the department. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the judgment given on a claim for damages by a man who had worked on the Clyde Tunnel, but I have taken a very careful note of what he had to say, and I have seen a copy of the judgment.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall give the closest continuing attention to this disturbing problem. We shall not hesitate to take further action in the light of improved knowledge. I assure him that we will study very carefully all the

suggestions that he has put forward tonight.

Sir M. Galpern: While I recognise that these people are entitled to receive disability pension from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, surely the proposal that I put forward is something that the Minister of Labour could look at. It is that contractors who employ physically fit men who ultimately contract the disease, causing them complete disability and misery, should contribute to a fund set up by themselves. Surely that is a matter that his Ministry could look into, and decide whether something along those lines could be done.

Mr. Thornton: When I assured the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I would give careful consideration to his suggestion, I had in mind the point which he has made. I should also be interested if my hon. Friend has any information on the American experience of compensation to which he referred, because I should be very pleased to look at it. But I am sure that he will understand my not being able to go further than that tonight. I undertake to look very carefully at all that he has had to say and to consider all the suggestions that he has made that come within the range of my right hon. Friend's responsibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.